The new US-Israeli peace plan for Gaza is sparking alarm across the international community. By carving the territory into a security-controlled green zone and a marginalized red zone, the proposal risks entrenching a colonial-style fragmentation of Palestinian life, undermining any real chance for sovereignty.
Under the proposal, Gaza would be divided into two distinct zones: a green area under joint Israeli and international oversight, and a red zone where Palestinians would be displaced and contained. In between lies a so-called yellow line, an invisible boundary separating the two.
The green zone would be reconstructed through new settlements referred to as alternative safe communities. These developments would begin in Rafah and stretch north along the yellow line. Entry into these communities would be tightly regulated, with screenings to determine who qualifies for residence. Palestinians outside the green zone would remain isolated and restricted in movement.
Critics argue that these controlled communities could institutionalize a system of dispossession, filtering Palestinians rather than reintegrating them, and limiting their ability to return to their original homes.
A transitional administrative body known as the Board of Peace would oversee Gaza under the plan. The body would reportedly be chaired by former US President Donald Trump during reconstruction.
Human rights analysts fear the arrangement reflects a colonial-style model where ultimate authority remains in the hands of outside actors rather than the people directly affected. Under such a structure, there would be no elections and no democratic accountability, raising the risk that governance in Gaza becomes external, technocratic, and disconnected from ordinary Palestinians.
Some experts describe the concept as a form of technocratic colonialism, where life in Gaza is regulated by foreign powers under the banner of peace and reconstruction.
Security forces assigned to uphold the plan would be stationed primarily along the yellow line, focusing on protecting the newly constructed communities instead of serving all civilians equally.
Observers warn that the yellow line could harden into a permanent border, turning Gaza into two unequal territories: a controlled, international reconstruction zone and a neglected periphery left in ruin.
The proposed system mirrors historical colonial strategies used to manage and isolate occupied populations. In the past, governments relocated civilians into newly created villages, strategic hamlets, and protected enclaves that limited movement and centralized control.
Similar tactics were used in Southeast Asia, Southern Africa, and other conflict zones, where occupying forces created segregated communities designed to weaken local resistance and dictate access to food, resources, and political life.
The echoes of these past systems generate deep concern, particularly among Palestinians who fear being confined to fragmented, supervised spaces lacking control over their own territory.
The peace plan appears to weaken, rather than strengthen, the prospects of Palestinian self-determination. Key parts of Gaza would remain externally governed, while residents in red zones could be sidelined politically and economically.
Aid groups caution that screening civilians for eligibility risks excluding thousands of displaced individuals, especially those accused of supporting resistance, creating a division between acceptable and unacceptable Palestinians.
If applied as described, the US-Israeli peace plan could redefine Gaza into fragmented enclaves divided by a yellow line. Rather than rebuilding the territory as a unified community, it risks reinforcing a system of control and inequality. Without meaningful agency and decision-making power for Palestinians, this proposal is not a roadmap for peace but a design for permanent separation.
