Reconstructing Gaza: The Board of Peace and the Politics of Masculinity

Donald Trump and his entourage of loyal supporters unveiled their Board of Peace committee and its’ reconstruction plan for a “New Gaza” at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January 2026, followed by their first publicised meeting in Washington D.C. in February 2026 (‘Imperial’ agenda: What’s Trump’s Gaza development plan, unveiled in Davos?, 2026). The 20-point Gaza plan, presented by Jared Kushner, revealed AI-generated images of a “Gazan Riviera”, with suburbs mirroring middle-class America, housing structures that eerily resemble a panopticon, and coastal skyscrapers sketched on top of current refugee camps and historical sites (Haddad and Mansour, 2026; Kushner et al., 2026). Beyond the proposal’s implicit imperialist and genocidal nature lie gendered dimensions that compound the harm. These forms of discrimination manifest not only in the structural exclusion of women from the Board of Peace itself, but in the identities of the men who run it, reinforcing hegemonic, militarised masculinities, while perpetuating racialised stereotypes of Muslim men.

Although there has been vocal criticism of the exclusion of Palestinians from the Board of Peace, there has been little to no scrutiny of the near-total absence of women (ElAssy, 2026; Humaid, 2026). Why have we become so comfortable with the exclusion of female leaders from the geopolitical sphere? Have we been conditioned to see their presence as an exception or bonus, rather than an expectation? In a world where less than 9% of countries have female Heads of State, this exclusion has become deeply embedded in our global order, producing gendered consequences and perpetuating the structural oppression of women (Facts and figures: Women’s leadership and political participation, 2026). Yadav and Horn (2021)  explain that peace, regarding violence against women, is not possible unless the underlying causes and structures of discrimination are addressed. Today, patriarchal domination remains a defining feature of global governance, and until these structures are directly confronted, violence against women, including indirectly or institutionally, will remain. 

The implications for the reconstruction of Gaza are profound. Gazan women and children comprise the majority of civilians killed since 2023 and have been most acutely affected by the ongoing genocide and reprocide, yet they remain almost entirely excluded from any meaningful role in reconstructing their home (Windle, 2024; Bishasa, 2025). Board of Peace members continue to promise peace and security, but it is hard to imagine a “New Gaza” that does not reproduce gendered hierarchies and violence against women when the committee responsible for it is built upon these very same exclusions.

This masculine domination within the membership of the Board of Peace invites a deeper analysis of the men who comprise it, particularly Donald Trump, and the hegemonic, militarised masculinity he embodies while creating a so-called transition to peace. Throughout both his campaigns and presidencies, Trump has attempted to position himself as the ideal form of hypermasculinity. He parades heteronormative and aggressive traits, wielding control over women, gender minorities, and men he finds effeminate. As he vows to protect women whether they like it or not, while repeatedly referring to their physical attributes as markers of their worth, he legitimises and perpetuates a form of essentialist, hegemonic masculinity that many believed was a thing of the American past  (O’Connell, 2024; Trump, 2026). As in the U.S., where we see rises in harassment against women, degradation of protection for female domestic abuse survivors, and the repeal of women’s rights to make decisions about their bodies, having a leader who is unapologetically misogynistic and violent towards women creates a ripple effect in society that has profound consequences (James, 2024; Mithani and Barclay, 2025). Beyond the structural exclusion of women’s knowledge and voices in rebuilding Gaza, a leader like this heading the project carries dangerous implications for Palestinian women and girls.  

Further, Trump’s political persona reflects a form of masculinity that exceeds the boundaries of traditional hegemonic characteristics and incorporates strongly militarised traits (Hamber, 2016). What I find most intriguing is that he embodies this militarised masculinity as he talks about creating peace. Hamber (2016) theorises that in post-conflict settings, where peace and stability are prioritised, men who built their identities around militarised traits tend to feel lost or purposeless and may undergo character shifts to reintegrate into a society that no longer values those forms of aggression. While Trump and his Board of Peace are actively creating a narrative of closure, insisting that the genocide, or “war” as they would call it, is behind us, they are continuing to embody the traits of a soldier. This contradiction alone should indicate that this genocide is far from over, and that these reconstruction plans have little to do with peace. Furthermore, it represents a resurgence of geopolitical celebration of overtly aggressive and violent behaviour in men, normalising these traits beyond the confines of war. Arguably, militarised masculinities are finding their place within everyday culture.

Lastly, Trump and his Board of Peace members not only create dangerous futures for Palestinian women and girls, but also reinforce hierarchical constructions of masculinity through the racialised framing of specifically brown and Muslim men. This reconstruction plan is primarily authored by white, Christian, American men peddling the narrative that Muslim men are dangerous threats to societies. Both Trump and Kushner, throughout their speeches in Davos and Washington, D.C., referred to Palestinian men as extremists, claiming peace was a “novelty” for them (Kushner et al., 2026; Trump, 2026). Shackle (2023) examines this construction through the idea of Orientalised binaries that were created by the “West” to position themselves as civilised and knowledgeable in comparison with the barbaric and unintelligent men of the “East”. In the same vein, it paints ‘Muslim women … as a homogenous oppressed group, and Muslim men as an equally homogenous group of savages’ (Shackle, 2023, p. 406). This discourse awards white men in Euro-America neutrality and immunity when committing the same acts of violence that brown men in the Middle East do, positioning themselves as protectors of peace rather than perpetrators of devastating violence and war. 

While Trump’s militarised hypermasculinity is not new to the world, the international consequences of it, should the Board of Peace move from theory to practice, are precipitous. Trump has repeatedly shown a willingness to enact violence against countries that disagree with him, but we should be equally wary of him trying to impose peace. For, among countless other reasons, the gendered consequences of his identity and this Board make peace unattainable.

Author biog:

Piper Tozer is a graduate from the MSc in Social Anthropology at the University of Edinburgh and the BA in Political Science from California Polytechnic State University. This blog was inspired by a module on Gender and Conflict from Piper’s current MSc in Humanitarian Policy and Practice at UCL. 

Bibliography:

Bishasa, A. (2025) IV South Africa’s Lawsuit Accusing Israel of Genocide. (Accessed: February 10, 2026).

ElAssy, N. (2026) In Gaza, my homeland is being transformed into an engineering project, The New Humanitarian. (Accessed: February 26, 2026).

Facts and figures: Women’s leadership and political participation (2026) UN Women. (Accessed: March 28, 2026).

Haddad, M. and Mansour, M. (2026) Map shows what would happen to Gaza under the US ‘master plan’ | Israel-Palestine conflict News | Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera. (Accessed: March 3, 2026).

Hamber, B. (2016) “There Is a Crack in Everything: Problematising Masculinities, Peacebuilding and Transitional Justice,” Human Rights Review, 17(1), pp. 9–34.

Humaid, M. (2026) In Gaza, Trump’s Board of Peace met with deep scepticism, little hope | Israel-Palestine conflict | Al Jazeera. (Accessed: March 3, 2026).

‘Imperial’ agenda: What’s Trump’s Gaza development plan, unveiled in Davos? (2026) Al Jazeera.(Accessed: February 10, 2026).

James, N. (2024) Women This Week: Online Abuse Against Women Surges After U.S. Election | Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations.(Accessed: March 5, 2026).

Kushner, J. et al. (2026) “Full Meeting: Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ convenes for the first time.” Davos: ABC News 4. PDflRGUHppo (Accessed: March 3, 2026).

Mithani, J. and Barclay, M.L. (2025) The Trump administration is making the country less safe for domestic violence victims, 19th News. (Accessed: March 5, 2026).

O’Connell, O. (2024) Trump vows to ‘protect’ women ‘whether the women like it or not’ | The Independent. (Accessed: February 26, 2026).

Shackle, S. (2023) “Breaking the Frame | The Power of Media Narratives and the Question of Agency,” in L. Abu-Lughod, R. Hammami, and N. Shalhoub-Kevorkian (eds.) The Cunning of Gender Violence: Geopolitics & Feminism. Duke University Press, pp. 405–421. 

Trump, D. (2026) “President Trump Speaks at First ‘Board of Peace’ Meeting in Washington.” Washington D.C.: DRM News. (Accessed: February 24, 2026).

Windle, M. (2024) Malnutrition and Mortality in Gaza, One Year Later. Who’s Counting the Dead?, Dissident Voice. (Accessed: February 10, 2026).

Yadav, P. and Horn, D.M. (2021) “Continuum of violence: feminist peace research and gender-based violence,” Routledge handbook of feminist peace research. Routledge, p. 450.