The formal architecture of a U.S.-backed plan for Gaza’s postwar future has been unveiled, revealing a top-heavy international structure that effectively sidelines Palestinian political aspirations while placing ultimate authority in the hands of American officials and their allies. This complex framework, announced as part of “Phase Two” of a ceasefire deal, has ignited fierce objections from Israel’s far-right government, but for Palestinians, it represents a profound marginalization that treats their homeland as a problem to be managed rather than a nation with the right to self-determination.
The plan establishes a clear hierarchy of power. At the apex sits the U.S.-chaired “Board of Peace,” supported by a “Founding Executive Board” populated by figures such as U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and billionaire investor Marc Rowan. This body holds strategic and financial control. A subordinate “Gaza Executive Board” is tasked with regional coordination and includes representatives from Qatar, Turkey, Egypt, and the UAE, alongside Kushner and other U.S. appointees. Notably, the only Israeli on this board is businessman Yakir Gabay, and no Palestinians hold seats at this decision-making level. At the bottom of this pyramid is the only Palestinian component: the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), a 15-member technocratic body led by Ali Shaath that is relegated to restoring municipal services like water, health, and education.
The inclusion of Turkish and Qatari officials on the executive boards triggered a swift and public objection from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who stated the appointments “were not coordinated with Israel and run contrary to its policy”. Far-right ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir went further, rejecting the entire U.S. plan and calling instead for Israeli annexation of Gaza, military rule, and the establishment of settlements. Smotrich condemned Qatar and Turkey as nations that “inspired Hamas” and argued they should be granted no foothold in the territory. However, analysts within Gaza view Netanyahu’s protest as largely tactical. The overarching U.S.-designed structure ultimately serves Israeli interests by outsourcing the immense burden and cost of managing Gaza’s humanitarian catastrophe to the international community, while Israel is poised to retain overriding security control. The objection over Turkish and Qatari involvement allows Netanyahu to appease his far-right coalition without fundamentally challenging a plan that isolates and depoliticizes Palestinian governance.
From a Palestinian perspective, the plan’s architecture is a blueprint for disenfranchisement. The NCAG, while composed of competent professionals, has been stripped of any sovereign authority. It operates under the direct supervision of a “High Representative,” Bulgarian diplomat Nickolay Mladenov, who himself reports to the U.S.-led boards above. Gaza-based political analyst Iyad al-Qarra describes this as a “corporate takeover” of the Palestinian cause, where Trump treats Gaza “not as a homeland, but as a bankrupt company in need of a new board of directors”. Another analyst, Wissam Afifa, notes that Palestinians have been reduced to “municipal employees,” responsible for cleaning rubble and restoring services but with “zero say in the political future of their land”. This “sovereignty-minus model” deliberately separates the administrative service file from the political file, attempting to bury the Palestinian national project under layers of international bureaucracy.
The launch of this governance plan exists in stark contrast to the unrelenting suffering in Gaza. Although a ceasefire has held in name since October, Israeli attacks have killed hundreds of Palestinians in the intervening period. A dire humanitarian crisis persists, with most of the population homeless, facing starvation, and exposed to winter storms that have killed infants from the cold. The central pillars of “Phase Two”, the disarmament of Hamas and the deployment of an International Stabilization Force remain distant and contentious prospects. Hamas has consistently refused to disarm while under Israeli occupation, viewing its weapons as legitimate tools of resistance. Meanwhile, the proposed international force, tasked with enforcing disarmament, is seen by critics as a recipe for an “internationalized civil war” that serves an Israeli security agenda without a political settlement.
The “Board of Peace” structure, therefore, appears designed to manage the symptoms of the conflict while ignoring its root cause: the Israeli occupation and the denial of Palestinian sovereignty. By creating a system where Americans and their partners decide, regional actors pay and coordinate, and Palestinians are merely tasked with implementation, the plan offers a vision of perpetual trusteeship. For a population that has endured a genocide and the wholesale destruction of their society, the choice presented is a bitter one: accept a lifeline of international administration that offers material relief but demands political surrender, or hold fast to the right of self-determination that has been denied for generations. The world now watches to see if this new administration will bring a Marshall Plan for Gaza or merely become another instrument of humanitarian blackmail, where aid is conditioned on ultimate Palestinian capitulation.