The announcement of the Gaza “Board of Peace” by the White House under President Donald Trump marks a new phase in the United States’ intervention in the Palestinian territory. Ostensibly designed to oversee the post-conflict governance and reconstruction of Gaza, the board is chaired by Trump himself and dominated by foreign actors, including U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and private sector heavyweights like Marc Rowan and World Bank President Ajay Banga. The composition underscores a stark reality: Gaza’s recovery, long claimed to be Palestinian-led, is being guided by actors with longstanding affiliations to Israeli and Western geopolitical interests.
The technocratic committee, led by former Palestinian Authority Deputy Minister Ali Shaath, is tasked with day-to-day governance, yet it remains subordinate to the executive board. The absence of elected Palestinian representatives in critical decision-making roles reduces Gaza’s governance to a managed experiment, raising profound concerns about sovereignty, legitimacy, and accountability.
Technocracy or Neo-Colonial Oversight?
Critics have quickly drawn parallels between the board and a colonial trusteeship. With Blair’s presence whose legacy in Iraq and support for the U.S.-led “war on terror” remains controversial and Kushner’s known pro-Israel stance, the board appears structured less for Palestinian self-determination than for enforcing externally dictated stability. The U.S. framing of the initiative as technocratic masks its geopolitical underpinnings: demilitarization, reconstruction, and control of Gaza’s strategic infrastructure are effectively outsourced to a foreign-led body.
The involvement of international figures such as Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, UN Middle East coordinator Sigrid Kaag, Qatari diplomat Ali Al-Thawadi, and UAE officials adds a veneer of multilateralism. Yet, the overarching authority remains in the hands of Trump and his executive team, ensuring that foreign priorities dictate both the timing and nature of Gaza’s reconstruction. Even the appointment of Maj. Gen. Jasper Jeffers as commander of the International Stabilization Force positions military oversight above civilian governance.
Undermining Palestinian Agency
For Gaza’s residents, the initiative represents governance without representation. The Palestinian technocratic committee, though comprised of local technocrats like Shaath, is constrained by the executive board’s directives. Decisions regarding public services, humanitarian aid, and reconstruction funding are ultimately filtered through foreign channels. This structure risks entrenching dependency, marginalizing local leadership, and undermining long-term political solutions.
International law and human rights experts have repeatedly emphasized that post-conflict reconstruction must prioritize the affected population’s agency. By excluding Palestinians from key decision-making roles, the Board of Peace risks replicating the very patterns of external control that have historically fueled resentment and instability in the region.
Strategic and Political Implications
The board’s formation coincides with the second phase of the U.S.-brokered ceasefire, emphasizing demilitarization and reconstruction following the October 2025 truce. While halting hostilities is vital, the broader strategy appears less concerned with sustainable peace than with consolidating influence. Gaza’s political vacuum is now managed by a coalition of technocrats, foreign diplomats, and U.S. advisers, signaling to both Hamas and regional actors that Palestinian self-governance is negotiable and externally supervised.
The optics are particularly troubling: a territory still recovering from two years of intense Israeli bombardment, with tens of thousands of casualties and massive infrastructural destruction, is being administered under the aegis of a foreign-led board. The United States and its allies risk normalizing governance structures that prioritize external control over local empowerment, setting a precedent with implications far beyond Gaza.
Conclusion
Trump’s Board of Peace for Gaza, while presented as a technocratic solution to post-war reconstruction, is fundamentally a mechanism of external oversight. By concentrating decision-making power in the hands of foreign officials and sidelining Palestinian political actors, the initiative raises urgent questions about sovereignty, legitimacy, and long-term stability. Gaza’s recovery, both humanitarian and political, requires genuine local ownership something the current board structure fails to guarantee. Without Palestinian agency at its core, the Board of Peace risks becoming a cautionary tale of governance imposed from above, rather than a pathway to sustainable, self-determined peace.
Inside Trump’s Board of Peace for Gaza
The announcement of the Gaza “Board of Peace” by the White House under President Donald Trump marks a new phase in the United States’ intervention in the Palestinian territory. Ostensibly designed to oversee the post-conflict governance and reconstruction of Gaza, the board is chaired by Trump himself and dominated by foreign actors, including U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and private sector heavyweights like Marc Rowan and World Bank President Ajay Banga. The composition underscores a stark reality: Gaza’s recovery, long claimed to be Palestinian-led, is being guided by actors with longstanding affiliations to Israeli and Western geopolitical interests.
The technocratic committee, led by former Palestinian Authority Deputy Minister Ali Shaath, is tasked with day-to-day governance, yet it remains subordinate to the executive board. The absence of elected Palestinian representatives in critical decision-making roles reduces Gaza’s governance to a managed experiment, raising profound concerns about sovereignty, legitimacy, and accountability.
Technocracy or Neo-Colonial Oversight?
Critics have quickly drawn parallels between the board and a colonial trusteeship. With Blair’s presence whose legacy in Iraq and support for the U.S.-led “war on terror” remains controversial and Kushner’s known pro-Israel stance, the board appears structured less for Palestinian self-determination than for enforcing externally dictated stability. The U.S. framing of the initiative as technocratic masks its geopolitical underpinnings: demilitarization, reconstruction, and control of Gaza’s strategic infrastructure are effectively outsourced to a foreign-led body.
The involvement of international figures such as Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, UN Middle East coordinator Sigrid Kaag, Qatari diplomat Ali Al-Thawadi, and UAE officials adds a veneer of multilateralism. Yet, the overarching authority remains in the hands of Trump and his executive team, ensuring that foreign priorities dictate both the timing and nature of Gaza’s reconstruction. Even the appointment of Maj. Gen. Jasper Jeffers as commander of the International Stabilization Force positions military oversight above civilian governance.
Undermining Palestinian Agency
For Gaza’s residents, the initiative represents governance without representation. The Palestinian technocratic committee, though comprised of local technocrats like Shaath, is constrained by the executive board’s directives. Decisions regarding public services, humanitarian aid, and reconstruction funding are ultimately filtered through foreign channels. This structure risks entrenching dependency, marginalizing local leadership, and undermining long-term political solutions.
International law and human rights experts have repeatedly emphasized that post-conflict reconstruction must prioritize the affected population’s agency. By excluding Palestinians from key decision-making roles, the Board of Peace risks replicating the very patterns of external control that have historically fueled resentment and instability in the region.
Strategic and Political Implications
The board’s formation coincides with the second phase of the U.S.-brokered ceasefire, emphasizing demilitarization and reconstruction following the October 2025 truce. While halting hostilities is vital, the broader strategy appears less concerned with sustainable peace than with consolidating influence. Gaza’s political vacuum is now managed by a coalition of technocrats, foreign diplomats, and U.S. advisers, signaling to both Hamas and regional actors that Palestinian self-governance is negotiable and externally supervised.
The optics are particularly troubling: a territory still recovering from two years of intense Israeli bombardment, with tens of thousands of casualties and massive infrastructural destruction, is being administered under the aegis of a foreign-led board. The United States and its allies risk normalizing governance structures that prioritize external control over local empowerment, setting a precedent with implications far beyond Gaza.
Conclusion
Trump’s Board of Peace for Gaza, while presented as a technocratic solution to post-war reconstruction, is fundamentally a mechanism of external oversight. By concentrating decision-making power in the hands of foreign officials and sidelining Palestinian political actors, the initiative raises urgent questions about sovereignty, legitimacy, and long-term stability. Gaza’s recovery, both humanitarian and political, requires genuine local ownership something the current board structure fails to guarantee. Without Palestinian agency at its core, the Board of Peace risks becoming a cautionary tale of governance imposed from above, rather than a pathway to sustainable, self-determined peace.
News Desk