Former U.S. President Donald Trump has once again placed himself at the center of international controversy by announcing the formation of a so-called “Gaza Board of Peace,” reportedly naming former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and his son-in-law Jared Kushner as key members. The announcement, framed as an effort to provide “strategic oversight” and “long-term stabilization” for Gaza, has already triggered intense criticism from diplomats, human rights groups, and political observers across the world.
The idea of a U.S.-led oversight body for one of the most volatile regions on earth is, in itself, a bold and deeply polarizing move. But the choice of Blair and Kushner has amplified the reaction, reviving memories of past conflicts, controversial foreign policy decisions, and unresolved questions about credibility and legitimacy.
Tony Blair’s inclusion is particularly striking. As Britain’s prime minister during the Iraq War, Blair remains a deeply divisive figure, especially in the Middle East. While he later served as the Quartet’s Middle East envoy and has long argued that engagement and economic development are essential for peace, many Palestinians and regional analysts view him as emblematic of Western interventionism. For critics, his appointment signals not neutrality, but continuity with policies that they believe have failed to deliver justice or lasting stability.
Jared Kushner’s role is no less contentious. As a central architect of the Trump administration’s Middle East strategy, Kushner spearheaded the Abraham Accords and promoted an economic-first approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Supporters credit him with breaking diplomatic deadlocks and normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab states. Detractors, however, argue that his plans sidelined Palestinian political rights and treated the conflict as a real estate and investment problem rather than a struggle rooted in occupation, sovereignty, and self-determination.
The very title “Board of Peace” has drawn skepticism. Many observers see it as a public relations label that masks a top-down approach, crafted without meaningful Palestinian representation. In Gaza, where years of blockade, repeated wars, and humanitarian crises have eroded trust in international initiatives, the announcement is likely to be met with anger and suspicion. For residents who have endured devastation and displacement, a committee led by figures associated with Western power politics may feel disconnected from their lived reality.
International reaction is expected to be swift and severe. European diplomats may bristle at Blair’s return to a formal role in Middle East affairs under a Trump banner, while Arab governments could face domestic pressure to distance themselves from a process perceived as biased. Human rights organizations are also likely to question how a body formed by a former U.S. president, with no clear mandate from the United Nations or regional consensus, could claim legitimacy or enforce accountability.
Supporters of the initiative argue that unconventional problems require unconventional solutions. They claim that Blair’s experience in global diplomacy and Kushner’s track record in deal-making could inject pragmatism into a stagnant peace process. From this perspective, the “Board of Peace” is less about symbolism and more about assembling high-profile figures who can leverage influence, networks, and financial backing.
Yet symbolism matters deeply in a conflict shaped by history, identity, and power. Appointing two figures so closely associated with controversial Western interventions risks reinforcing the perception that Gaza’s future is being discussed without Gazans themselves at the table. Rather than fostering confidence, the move may harden skepticism toward any externally driven peace plan.
Ultimately, Trump’s announcement appears poised to do what many of his foreign policy initiatives have done before: dominate headlines, divide opinion, and provoke fierce debate about who has the right to define “peace” in one of the world’s most enduring conflicts. Whether the “Gaza Board of Peace” becomes a serious diplomatic mechanism or remains a symbolic, polarizing gesture will depend not on the prominence of its members, but on whether it can earn legitimacy from the people whose lives are most affected by its decisions.
