As the "Board of Peace" (BoP)-directed by Bulgarian diplomat Nickolay Mladenov and championed by the Trump administration-prepares to implement the next phase of its "Comprehensive Plan" for Gaza, the West must resist the siren song of a "managed transition."
On the surface, the BoP’s directive for a technocratic committee to assume civilian administration appears to fulfill the American demand that Hamas "not wield power in Gaza." However, the history of Islamist "reconciliation" and the sociological realities of the region suggest that this technocracy is merely a shell game designed to preserve the terror group’s longevity and provide it with a path to political survival.
The directive, issued through Hamas's own media outlets, instructs local agencies to "be ready to hand over all areas" to a vetted Palestinian Arab committee. This proposal is built on the flawed assumption that civilian governance can be decoupled from military power in a territory where every bureaucratic artery has been pumped with jihadi ideology for nearly two decades. By still retaining its weapons, much of its vast underground infrastructure, and its shadow network, Hamas intends to remain the "power behind the throne."
This vetted committee will not function as an independent governing body; instead, it will serve as a sophisticated "human shield" for the movement, providing an international face for reconstruction while the movement siphons resources to rebuild its "Axis of Resistance."
The fundamental error in the "Board of Peace" framework is its focus on the "day after" rather than the "end of the war." A technocratic mask does not change the face of the wearer. In a territory where Hamas still possesses the capability to intimidate, assassinate, or co-opt local administrators, any "independent" body will eventually become a subcontractor for the terror group. This is the essence of the "Tamkeen" strategy-the Islamist doctrine of institutional entrenchment-whereby the group avoids the scrutiny of direct rule while maintaining total control over the levers of power.
The Israeli defense establishment has already sounded the alarm, noting that Hamas is currently strengthening through the very humanitarian aid meant to bypass it. Every truck that enters under a framework that lacks Israeli security control provides the "oxygen" the movement needs to survive the winter and reconstitute in the spring.
The failed "mowing the grass" strategy of the last twenty years-characterized by periodic rounds of violence followed by uneasy truces-must not be replaced by a "managed transition" that leaves the enemy’s organizational infrastructure intact. Real peace is never made with active enemies who believe they can wait out their opponents; it is made only with former enemies who have been unequivocally defeated.
Victory requires "organizational finality." It means the total and irreversible destruction of Hamas as a political and military entity. As has been stated in Jerusalem, there is "no more containment." Only constant, proactive activity can ensure that the terror infrastructure is pulverized beyond the point where it can ever be rebuilt.
A particularly alarming dimension of this technocratic ploy is the reported negotiation to relocate senior Hamas leaders from Gaza to Tunisia. While some in the international community view exile as a way to "decapitate" the local branch, the strategic reality is a Mediterranean risk of the highest order. Under President Kais Saied, Tunisia has drifted into a populist, anti-Western orbit aligned with Tehran and Algiers.
Hosting Hamas in Tunis would provide Iran with a vital Mediterranean foothold, enabling military threat projection toward Europe and potentially fulfilling threats to close the Strait of Gibraltar. Furthermore, a Tunisian base could serve as a new hub for "narcoterror," utilizing criminal networks linked to migrant smuggling to replace the collapsed smuggling nexus in Latin America.
The only acceptable outcome of the Gaza war is the total organizational destruction of Hamas. The international community and the "Board of Peace" must not be fooled by political theater or "technocratic" masks. The "Justice Charade" we are currently witnessing in Damascus-where an Islamist regime promises moderation while delivering sectarian cleansing-should serve as a warning. Peace will not be declared when a new committee is appointed, but when the organizational infrastructure of the enemy is destroyed.
Israel must continue to exert its sovereignty and maintain its red lines, ensuring that not a single dollar of reconstruction aid reaches a regime that permits terrorists to regroup. The lesson of the last decade is clear: radical Islam is the problem, and only a position of uncompromising strength can provide the solution.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx