The Trump administration’s newly announced “Board of Peace” for Gaza has ignited significant criticism from multiple stakeholders, raising questions about its legitimacy and operational transparency. President Donald Trump unveiled the initiative as part of his comprehensive 20-point plan to resolve the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian territory, establishing both a broader Board of Peace that he will personally chair and a specialized “Gaza Executive Board” to implement specific stabilization measures.
The White House revealed that the executive board includes prominent figures such as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, World Bank Group President Ajay Banga, Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan, and Deputy National Security Adviser Robert Gabriel. According to official statements, these members will oversee critical portfolios including governance capacity-building, regional relations, reconstruction efforts, investment attraction, and large-scale funding mobilization.
However, the announcement encountered immediate resistance. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office stated that the board membership “was not coordinated with Israel and runs contrary to its policy,” with instructions given for the Foreign Affairs Minister to contact the US Secretary of State regarding the matter.
Palestinian factions expressed stronger objections. The Islamic Jihad Movement condemned the initiative as serving “Israeli interests” and aligning with “occupation specifications,” viewing it as indicative of negative intentions regarding ceasefire implementation. Meanwhile, the parallel formation of a 15-member Palestinian technocrat committee led by Ali Shaath, hailed by the US as a “vital step forward,” failed to alleviate concerns.
Critics highlighted fundamental flaws in the approach. Ashish Prashar, former aide to Tony Blair, criticized board members for having a “strong track record of endorsing and arming Israel’s project of genocide” and emphasized that “the future of Palestine should only be decided by Palestinians.” Academic expert Abdul Wahed Jalal Nori of the International Islamic University Malaysia questioned the mechanism’s credibility, legitimacy, and intent, stating that any peace initiative “while excluding Palestinians from meaningful consultation is fundamentally flawed.”
The emerging consensus among critics suggests the board is perceived less as a genuine peace mechanism and more as an administrative tool designed to manage the consequences of destruction rather than address root causes of the conflict, with particular concern about the documented history of military intervention and political cover for Israel’s actions among proposed board members.