In a major diplomatic development with wide implications for global efforts to resolve the decades‑long Israeli‑Palestinian conflict, United States President Donald J. Trump has formally invited India to join a newly proposed international body known as the “Board of Peace” for Gaza. This announcement comes at a delicate moment in the Middle East, where a recent ceasefire between Israel and Hamas has temporarily halted the intense bombardment of the Gaza Strip and opened a new chapter of international involvement in reconstruction, governance, and long‑term stability.

According to individuals briefed on the discussions — who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the ongoing diplomatic engagements — India’s inclusion in this board reflects the Trump administration’s desire to bring diverse global voices into a structured effort aimed at addressing not only the immediate humanitarian crisis in Gaza, but also the broader political and economic challenges that have long bedeviled the region.

Importantly, the invitation to India follows a similar outreach to Pakistan, which underscores the unusual scope of this initiative and the U.S. strategy of engaging not only traditional Western allies but also influential non‑Western powers in shaping the future of Gaza. On the same day that news of India’s invitation emerged, Pakistan’s Foreign Office publicly confirmed that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had received an official invitation from President Trump to participate in the Board of Peace. This step signals a rare instance in which India and Pakistan are being courted by a major power to contribute to a shared diplomatic platform — a development that could carry broader implications for their respective foreign policy priorities.

The ‘Board of Peace’: Concept and Purpose

The Board of Peace was unveiled by President Trump as part of what the U.S. administration describes as the second phase of a comprehensive ceasefire agreement designed to end Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. The conflict, which erupted with dramatic intensity and resulted in widespread devastation across the densely populated Palestinian territory, drew global condemnation and amplified calls for both immediate relief and structural reforms to prevent future hostilities.

In essence, the Board of Peace is conceptualized as an international supervisory and advisory body. Its mandate — still evolving, and based on early draft documents circulated by the U.S. government — is to oversee capacity‑building for governance, reconstruction, investment, and capital mobilization in Gaza. Officials involved in drafting the charter describe it as a multilateral platform where participating countries can collaborate on restoring governance structures, securing vital infrastructure, and mobilizing financial resources necessary for long‑term recovery.

A draft version of the board’s charter — shared with more than 60 countries by the Trump administration — outlines the body’s core objectives. According to the draft, the Board of Peace will aim to “promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.” It envisions a role for member states not just in providing financial assistance, but also in policy coordination, institutional support, and strategic planning.

One particularly notable provision in the draft charter — reported by international media including Reuters — suggests that participating nations would be expected to contribute USD 1 billion in cash if they wish their membership to extend beyond an initial three‑year period. This requirement, designed to ensure sustained financial backing, has already attracted debate among prospective participants regarding the feasibility and equity of such a financial commitment, particularly for smaller economies.

Global Invitations and International Response

Beyond India and Pakistan, the Trump administration has reportedly extended invitations to a broad spectrum of world leaders, signaling the global character of the initiative. Among those invited are senior leaders from key regional and global powers, including:

• President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkiye
• President Abdel Fattah el‑Sisi of Egypt
• European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen
• Heads of state from France, Germany, Australia, and Canada

The inclusion of this diverse group reflects U.S. efforts to blend Western and non‑Western perspectives, and to leverage the political capital of both regional stakeholders and influential democratic powers in shaping Gaza’s future.

The precise list of invitees and their responses remain fluid. Some countries have publicly acknowledged receipt of invitations and expressed preliminary interest, while others have remained circumspect, signaling that consultations and internal reviews are underway. Analysts note that the diplomatic sensitivity of engaging with the Gaza issue — particularly for countries with significant Muslim populations or deep historical ties in the region — may shape how eagerly national governments embrace the board’s proposed commitments.

Leadership and Structure: Tony Blair and Other Founding Members

In a move that has drawn international attention — and, in some quarters, criticism — President Trump announced last Friday that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair will serve as one of the founding executive members of the Board of Peace. This appointment is significant both for Blair’s stature as a seasoned international statesman and because of his controversial legacy related to the Iraq War. Blair’s support in 2003 for the U.S.‑led invasion of Iraq — justified at the time by assertions that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction — became deeply contentious after those assertions proved unfounded. As a result, Blair’s involvement in the Gaza initiative has already drawn scrutiny from critics who question the wisdom of entrusting a figure associated with past foreign policy missteps with oversight of a delicate peace process.

Alongside Blair, the United States has identified several other high‑profile figures to serve on the board’s executive leadership team, including:

• Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son‑in‑law and senior advisor
• U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio
• Steve Witkoff, the U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East
• Ajay Banga, President of the World Bank Group

These appointments suggest a hybrid leadership model that combines political appointees, diplomatic officials, and international financial expertise. The inclusion of the World Bank’s president, in particular, signals the administration’s emphasis on economic reconstruction and institutional development as key components of the peace strategy.

Many of the same individuals named to the Board of Peace’s executive leadership are also reported to be linked to a “Gaza executive board”, a separate — though related — governance entity intended to oversee the so‑called National Committee for the Administration of Gaza. This Palestinian‑focused committee, made up of technocrats and administrators, is envisioned as a transitional administrative authority with responsibility for basic public services, reconstruction planning, and interfacing with international partners. The exact relationship between the Board of Peace and the Gaza executive board is reportedly still being finalized, but early indications suggest that the Board of Peace would provide strategic oversight, guidance, and resources to support the nascent Palestinian administrative structures in Gaza.

Challenges and Criticisms Ahead

Despite its ambitious goals, the Board of Peace proposal has elicited a range of responses from diplomats, policy analysts, and activists. Supporters argue that the initiative represents a necessary departure from previous piecemeal approaches to the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict, offering a structured mechanism for long‑term engagement that goes beyond short‑term humanitarian relief. They contend that by including a wide range of countries — including those from outside traditional Western alliances — the board could foster a broadly representative consensus on pathways to stability.

Critics, however, have raised concerns on several fronts. Some see the financial commitment requirement as potentially exclusionary, arguing that a USD 1 billion minimum could dissuade or sideline nations with limited fiscal capacity. Others caution that the involvement of highly politicized figures — such as Blair — may undermine confidence in the board’s impartiality. Still others point out that long‑standing political realities on the ground — including the absence of a unified Palestinian leadership and the deep mistrust between Israel and Hamas — pose formidable obstacles that no external board can easily overcome.

As discussions advance, the coming weeks and months are likely to reveal how various governments respond to the invitations, whether formal charters are ratified, and how this ambitious international effort might translate into tangible progress on the ground in Gaza. For now, the announcement of India and Pakistan as invitees to the Board of Peace underscores the evolving nature of global diplomacy and highlights the complexities inherent in efforts to secure enduring peace in one of the world’s most volatile regions.