India and Trump’s Gaza Peace Board: A Risky Invitation

India has been invited to join a newly-created Gaza Peace Board chaired by Donald Trump, which Washington says is meant to broaden international involvement in post-war stabilisation and reconstruction in Gaza. New Delhi now faces a stark choice: whether to participate, or to stay out of a framework that critics argue is politically imbalanced, and strategically risky.

The invitation comes as the Gaza war enters its third year. Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas killed about 1,200 people in Israel and took hostages, the Gaza Strip has faced sustained Israeli airstrikes, ground operations and a tight blockade. More than 30,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, are reported killed, with deaths worsened by hunger, disease and the collapse of hospitals amid severe shortages of fuel and aid. Human rights groups and UN officials have accused Israel of atrocities, including indiscriminate strikes and restrictions on humanitarian access—claims Israel disputes—sparking global outrage and calls for accountability.

Adding to the controversy is Donald Trump’s real-estate-driven vision for Gaza. In February 2025, he described the Gaza Strip as a potential “Riviera of the Middle East”, arguing it should be taken over and redeveloped. During a February 4, 2025 White House meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said the U.S. should “take over” and “own” Gaza, calling it a “demolition site” with high redevelopment potential. He repeated the idea days later, calling Gaza a “big real estate site”, and promoted the vision online. The concept was formalised on September 29, 2025, in a 20-point plan proposing Gaza’s redevelopment under a US-chaired Board of Peace.

That proposal took concrete shape on January 15, 2026, when Trump announced the Gaza Peace Board as a U.S.-led political and reconstruction body, operating outside UN frameworks. Washington has outlined an initial $1bn reconstruction package for housing, power, water, sanitation and jobs, with funding tied to security conditions and regional cooperation.

The Executive Board, announced on January 17, brings together a mix of diplomats, politicians and financiers. It includes Nickolay Mladenov as High Representative for Gaza, U.S. secretary of state Marco Rubio, Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, former UK prime minister Tony Blair, Apollo Global Management chief Marc Rowan, World Bank president Ajay Banga and political adviser Robert Gabriel Jr.

Invitations to join as founding members span multiple regions, including Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, the UAE and Morocco; Argentina, Canada, Brazil and Paraguay; India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Australia and Indonesia; and European countries such as France, Germany and the UK. Israel is not a formal board member but holds decisive influence over security and implementation, while Palestine has no direct representation, with only a general promise of later involvement through the Palestinian Authority.

There are strong reasons for India to stay out of the Gaza Peace Board. The most important is the absence of Palestinian political ownership, which makes any outcome look externally imposed and weak on legitimacy. At the same time, Israel enjoys a de facto veto over security and implementation despite not being a formal member, creating a serious imbalance without accountability.

The board also bypasses UN-led frameworks, undermining international law and norms that India has consistently supported.

Its US-dominated structure offers little clarity on Gaza’s future governance, borders or sovereignty.

From a humanitarian perspective, linking reconstruction funds to security conditions risks delaying urgently needed relief, while the $1billion package could shift costs onto partner countries without addressing the conflict’s political roots.

Finally, commercialisation concerns loom large. Donald Trump’s earlier real-estate rhetoric on Gaza, combined with the presence of financiers on the board, has raised fears that reconstruction could prioritise commercial projects and land use over Palestinian rights, consent and return.

Taken together, these factors carry clear reputational and strategic risks for India, which can support humanitarian relief and reconstruction without formally joining the board—an approach that may better preserve its credibility.