The architects of Gaza’s post-war future promise reconstruction. The question is whether lasting peace can emerge from a process that prioritizes stability and administration over political justice and self-determination.
Named after the “High Representative for Gaza”, Nickolay Mladenov, his “peace plan” appears to be far more than an international attempt to rebuilt Gaza. While the proposal is presented as a humanitarian and political response aimed at preventing the wars recurrence, it raises profound questions about the future it seeks to construct––and the place Palestinians themselves will occupy within that future.
What Is Mladenov’s Plan?
Mladenov’s fifteen-point plan presents a comprehensive vision for post-war Gaza. It was put in place by the so-called “Board of Peace”, inaugurated by Donald Trump against the backdrop of putting an end to Israel’s war on Gaza. Ironically, it is a board that does not represent a single Palestinian. They are only represented in the so-called ‘National Committee for the Administration of Gaza’ (NCAG), which has no decision-making powers but merely performs an executive role.
The plan is built around a permanent ceasefire, disarmament measures, large-scale reconstruction, and the restructuring of administrative and security institutions. Further, it aims to establish a transitional governance structure, the NCAG, which is supported and supervised by the “Board of Peace”.
The Limits of Liberal Peace in the Palestinian Context
This troubling dimension of the plan is what may be described as “governance without sovereignty.” It seeks to establish a system capable of managing Palestinian society, without addressing the underlying question of self-determination and national rights. This reflects a wider transformation in international approaches to the Palestinian issue—from pursuing an end of the occupation and guaranteeing Palestinian sovereignty to managing the humanitarian and security consequences of the conflict.
In other words: the focus shifts from addressing the roots of the crisis to containing its outcomes; from questions of political justice to questions of stability and risk management. Such a shift produces a form of “post-disaster governance” more than it seeks to achieve historical justice or a genuine horizon of liberation.
With this pattern, the plan clearly belongs to what political theory describes as the “liberal peace” model. This model assumes that institution-building, improved governance, and reconstruction can generate stability. Yet, this framework encounters a fundamental dilemma in the Palestinian context. It approaches a reality defined by occupation, blockade, and profound asymmetries of power. As a result, it addresses the consequences of violence more than the structural conditions that produce it.
Internationalizing Gaza and Reengineering the Palestinian Space
Looking at the “Board of Peace”, the plan reflects a growing tendency to internationalize Gaza’s future. Direct Palestinian agency is being undermined. They are becoming the object of political and security engineering conducted by external actors. The danger here lies in a transition from direct military domination to more sophisticated forms of control exercised through economics, aid, governance mechanisms, and security oversight.
Therefore, the central question should not simply be: How can Gaza be rebuilt? It should be: Can sustainable peace be achieved without political justice? Historical experience has repeatedly demonstratedthat reconstruction without addressing the root causes of conflict may produce temporary stability, but rarely produces genuine peace.
The Palestinian Challenge: Restoring the Centrality of Rights
The Palestinian challenge does not lie simply in rejecting international initiatives. Rather, it lies in the ability to restore national rights to the center of any future political or humanitarian process. This requires reclaiming the Palestinian question as one of national liberation, rights, and sovereignty—not merely a humanitarian crisis or security file.
It also requires rebuilding Palestinian political agency on inclusive and representative foundations, as political fragmentation and institutional paralysis create the very conditions that allow technocratic solutions to emerge as substitutes for a national political project.
The significance of Mladenov’s plan lies in a framework in which freedom may be exchanged for stability, sovereignty for administration, and rights for conditional assistance. Consequently, the Palestinian struggle is not limited to rebuilding what war has destroyed; it will also involve defending the political meaning of the Palestinian cause itself—protecting the right of a people to freedom and self-determination.
