Donald Trump announced on Monday that a Gaza peace deal was “beyond very close”, presenting a 20-point plan to end the war as Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu backed the plan.
Under the proposal, Israel would ultimately withdraw, and Gaza would be governed by a transitional government responsible for the day-to-day running of public services, overseen by an international body called the “Board of Peace”.
Ultimately, the proposals suggest, the interim government could be replaced by a reformed Palestinian Authority, though questions around a future Palestinian state remain unanswered.
Who would be on the Board of Peace?
The board would be headed and chaired by Mr Trump. Former British prime minister Sir Tony Blair would also have a central role – as yet undefined. Sir Tony said the plans were “the best chance of ending two years of war, misery and suffering”.
Still, little is known about the exact shape of the board. “Members and heads of state” are still “to be announced”, Monday’s plan teased. Mr Trump has been as vague in referring only to Sir Tony “and some others”.
Sources familiar with the plans before they became public told The Economist that a body headed by Sir Tony would seek a UN mandate to be Gaza’s “supreme political and legal authority” for five years.
If approved, Sir Tony could have a secretariat of up to 25 people and chair a seven-person board to oversee an executive body running the territory, the magazine reported last week. Despite numerous draft submissions from foreign onlookers, it was Sir Tony’s proposals that were said to have won the backing of the US president.
What would the board do?
The published proposals say that the Board of Peace would “set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza” until the Palestinian Authority has “completed its reform programme, as outlined in various proposals”. “Full aid” would also be sent to Gaza immediately.
Hamas would have no role in governance, “directly, indirectly, or in any form”, the 20-point plan says. Members of Hamas “who commit to peaceful coexistence” and give up arms would be given amnesty. Those who wish to leave Gaza would be provided with safe passage to receiving countries. It was not immediately clear which countries have tentatively agreed to take them.
Dr Andreas Krieg, associate professor of defence studies at King’s College London, told The Independent the Board of Peace was “clearly designed as an elite-managed trusteeship, with Trump and figures such as Tony Blair at the centre, alongside regional actors like the Emiratis, Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians and Qataris”.
Their involvement, he said, would be “essential both for funding and legitimacy”.
He said that a transitional and technocratic governance was “the only way forward at this point”, while warning that it will only succeed with a “rigid and enforceable timeline”.
“Without that, it risks sliding into a new status quo, ie effective foreign stewardship of Gaza without Palestinian consent, a scenario reminiscent of Shanghai in the 1930s.”
What role could the UAE have?
One strong candidate for some role in the “international oversight body” is the United Arab Emirates. The Emiratis were pegged for possible involvement in a post-war Gaza government earlier this year, and said to have held discussions with Israel and the United States for a role in a provisional administration.
A dozen foreign diplomats and Western officials told Reuters in January that discussions behind the scenes were gesturing towards several nations, including the UAE, temporarily overseeing the governance, security and reconstruction of Gaza until a Palestinian administration could take over.
Abu Dhabi was said to be advocating for a reformed Palestinian Authority to ultimately govern Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem under an independent state. The UAE has a relatively strong regional position in maintaining diplomatic ties with Israel.
What happens next?
The 20-point plan is still contingent upon approval from both sides. Mr Netanyahu said he “supported” Mr Trump’s plan for ending the war. Hamas said it will consider the proposal “in good faith” once it receives a formal, written version.
It has said it will give its verdict on the plan on Wednesday.
“For Hamas the plan, on its face, amounts to an existential threat”, Dr Krieg said. “Yet Hamas has historically sought to amend rather than wholly reject proposals, and there is scope for the political leadership abroad to explore a partial acceptance of certain elements like amnesty, exile, humanitarian relief, while fighters on the ground resist.”
“Such a dynamic would risk splitting the movement, which could lead to a fragmented Hamas in which some parts might acquiesce to a technocratic arrangement, while others continue armed resistance.”
