President Donald Trump has made a somewhat unexpected move. Trump has invited India to be a part of what he called “Board of Peace” meant to oversee governance and reconstruction in postwar Gaza.
The Gaza “Board of Peace” is an international body announced in January 2026 by Trump as part of a broader postwar Gaza peace initiative following a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.
Its stated purpose is to oversee reconstruction, stabilization, and governance in Gaza, transitioning the region from conflict toward a technocratic administration. The board is intended to supervise a Palestinian committee responsible for day-to-day governance, while also coordinating international funding, security, and reconstruction efforts.
READ: US halts visitor visas for Gaza residents (18 August, 2025)
Trump serves as chairman, and prominent figures such as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Jared Kushner, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, and World Bank President Ajay Banga have been named as founding members.
Several countries, including India, Hungary, Australia, and Pakistan, have been invited to participate, with some agreeing to contribute the roughly $1 billion required for permanent membership beyond an initial three-year term.
India is a country acceptable to both Israel and Palestine because of historic ties with both and as India enjoys strategic partnership with Israel and has given regular humanitarian aid and help to Palestine.
The initiative has been controversial. Some Gazans and regional observers are supposedly questioning whether the board prioritizes external interests over local needs. In Israel, far-right ministers have objected, citing lack of consultation and concerns over the plan’s legitimacy.
While the board represents a high-profile effort to stabilize Gaza in 2026, its effectiveness and acceptance among key stakeholders remain uncertain, and its long-term role in governance is still evolving.
The creation of the Gaza “Board of Peace” highlights the complexities and challenges inherent in post-conflict reconstruction and governance. It underscores how international initiatives, even when backed by prominent global figures, must carefully balance the interests of local populations with broader geopolitical considerations.
The involvement of multiple countries demonstrates the growing recognition that long-term stability requires collaboration, funding, and oversight from a variety of actors, yet it also raises questions about the supposed extent of external influence in decisions that directly affect affected communities.
The situation illustrates the delicate interplay between diplomacy, humanitarian efforts, and political legitimacy. Even well-intentioned efforts can face skepticism if local stakeholders feel excluded or if the priorities of international participants appear misaligned with the immediate needs of the population.
Moreover, initiatives like this can serve as both a catalyst for progress and a source of contention, particularly when historical grievances, regional rivalries, and differing visions of governance come into play.
The board represents a test case for the broader concept of multilateral intervention in post-conflict zones, and its success will depend not only on financial and logistical support but also on how effectively it can build trust among local actors, respect existing political realities, and create tangible improvements on the ground.
The initiative serves as a reminder that international peacebuilding requires patience, coordination, and sensitivity to the perspectives and priorities of those most directly affected.