The Trump administration has circulated a draft charter of President Donald Trump’s proposed Gaza Peace Board to around 60 countries, introducing a controversial شرط that nations seeking long-term membership will be required to contribute at least $1 billion. The move has sparked international debate over the structure, funding, and legitimacy of the proposed body, which aims to oversee administrative, reconstruction, and peace-related matters in Gaza.
According to a report by the British news agency Reuters, the charter outlines the framework, membership criteria, and financial obligations associated with the Gaza Peace Board. Under the proposed rules, countries that wish to become long-term members of the board will be required to provide a financial contribution of $1 billion. This شرط has raised questions about inclusivity and whether financial capacity, rather than political or humanitarian commitment, will determine participation.
The charter states that each member country will serve a three-year term starting from the date the charter comes into force. During this period, members are expected to provide services, support, and cooperation in line with the board’s mandate, which includes governance support, reconstruction planning, and coordination of international efforts aimed at stabilizing Gaza.
However, the charter also provides flexibility regarding membership duration. It notes that the term of membership can be extended with the approval of the chairman of the Gaza Peace Board. Furthermore, the three-year membership condition will not apply to countries that contribute more than $1 billion in cash during the first year of the board’s operations. This clause appears to create a tiered membership structure, giving greater influence or longer participation rights to major financial contributors.
The initiative is part of President Trump’s broader plan for Gaza, under which he announced the formation of the Gaza Board of Peace just a day earlier. The board is envisioned as a key mechanism for managing Gaza’s administrative affairs and leading reconstruction efforts following years of conflict and destruction.
The proposal has drawn significant international attention, particularly after it emerged that Pakistan has been formally invited to join the board. Pakistan’s Foreign Office has confirmed that it received an official invitation to participate in the Gaza Board of Peace. In a statement, the Foreign Office said that Pakistan will continue to play an active role in global efforts for peace and security in Gaza and will remain engaged with the international community to help achieve sustainable peace in the region.
Earlier reports also indicated that President Trump personally invited Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to become part of the Gaza Board of Peace. The invitation reflects Pakistan’s long-standing diplomatic position on the Palestinian issue and its advocacy for a just and lasting solution.
According to the announcement made by Trump, the Gaza Board of Peace will be chaired by him and will include several high-profile international figures. Among those named as members are US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, World Bank President Ajay Banga, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, along with other international personalities.
Supporters of the initiative argue that the inclusion of influential global figures and major financial contributors could accelerate reconstruction and bring much-needed resources to Gaza. They claim that a centralized board with strong international backing could help coordinate aid, avoid duplication of efforts, and create a more stable governance framework.
However, the proposal has also faced criticism and outright rejection, particularly from Israel. Israeli authorities have publicly rejected the formation of the Gaza Board of Peace, stating that it runs counter to Israeli government policy. According to foreign media reports, a statement issued by the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel was not consulted during the formation of the board.
The statement emphasized that establishing such a body without coordination with Israel is unacceptable, especially given Israel’s security concerns and its role in matters related to Gaza. It further said that Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar would raise the issue of the Gaza Board directly with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Critics have also questioned the legitimacy of a board formed without the direct involvement or consent of key regional stakeholders. Some analysts argue that excluding Israel from the consultation process could undermine the board’s effectiveness and lead to further political friction rather than cooperation.
At the same time, human rights groups and policy experts have expressed concern over the financial شرط attached to long-term membership. They argue that demanding a $1 billion contribution could marginalize developing countries and shift decision-making power toward wealthy states, potentially skewing priorities away from humanitarian needs and toward donor-driven agendas.
The charter’s provision allowing extended membership for countries contributing more than $1 billion in the first year has also been criticized as creating a “pay-to-influence” model. Observers warn that this could compromise the board’s neutrality and raise ethical questions about governance in a conflict-affected region like Gaza.
Despite the controversy, the Trump administration appears determined to move forward with the plan. Officials argue that Gaza’s reconstruction will require massive financial resources and sustained international commitment, and that clear funding requirements are necessary to ensure seriousness and accountability among participating nations.
The situation remains fluid, with several countries reportedly reviewing the charter and weighing their options. While some may see participation as an opportunity to shape Gaza’s future and contribute to stability, others may hesitate due to political sensitivities, financial constraints, or concerns over the board’s structure and mandate.
As reactions continue to pour in, the Gaza Peace Board proposal has become a focal point of international debate, highlighting deep divisions over how Gaza should be governed, rebuilt, and supported. Whether the initiative will gain broad acceptance or face increasing resistance remains to be seen, but it has already reshaped discussions around international involvement in Gaza’s future.
