By Sana Khan* – Modern Diplomacy
The White House’s proposal for a “temporary” governance structure in Gaza, with Donald Trump at the helm of an international supervisory board and Tony Blair in a supporting role, is more than just an eyebrow-raising headline it reveals the deep contradictions and risks of Western-led post-conflict management in the Middle East.
The White House’s proposal for a “temporary” governance structure in Gaza, with Donald Trump at the helm of an international supervisory board and Tony Blair in a supporting role, is more than just an eyebrow-raising headline it reveals the deep contradictions and risks of Western-led post-conflict management in the Middle East.
The Core Issues
At its heart, the proposal sidelines Palestinian agency. While it mentions a “technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee,” no Palestinian figures or groups are named. Instead, authority is effectively outsourced to an international “Board of Peace” led by Trump and including Blair two deeply polarizing figures. For many Palestinians and regional observers, this arrangement looks less like a neutral transitional plan and more like external control dressed up in technocratic language.
Blair’s involvement is particularly fraught. His legacy in the Middle East is inseparable from the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq justified on the false premise of weapons of mass destruction which devastated regional stability and cost hundreds of thousands of lives. To Palestinians, inviting Blair back into a position of authority feels like déjà vu: another Western architect of war being recycled as a “peace” broker.
Trump’s leadership role is equally contentious. His administration’s policies overwhelmingly favored Israel, from recognizing Jerusalem as its capital to cutting funding for Palestinian aid agencies. Asking him to head Gaza’s interim governance structure sends a signal that Washington continues to privilege geopolitical optics and domestic political symbolism over Palestinian legitimacy.
Why It Matters
The optics of foreign figures managing Gaza while Palestinians are cast as mere administrators of their own territory risks further alienating Palestinian society and undermining any claims of neutrality. The international community’s credibility is already strained; adding Blair and Trump to the mix only reinforces the perception of neo-imperial overreach.
The plan also punts the question of sovereignty into the future. It states Gaza will be run this way until the Palestinian Authority “completes its reform program,” but gives no timeline. That vagueness allows the interim arrangement to become a long-term reality reminiscent of other “temporary” international administrations in conflict zones that dragged on for years.
Stakeholders and Reactions
Palestinian leaders like Mustafa Barghouti have been clear: Blair’s reputation in the region is overwhelmingly negative, linked directly to Iraq. UN officials like Francesca Albanese have outright rejected the plan, calling Blair’s involvement unacceptable. Even among Palestinians who welcome an end to war, the sense is that this framework repeats patterns of exclusion and external imposition.
Meanwhile, some Muslim-majority states cautiously welcomed Trump’s effort, likely calculating that any proposal to end the war is better than none. But such endorsements may reflect diplomatic pragmatism rather than genuine support.
Analysis
This plan feels less like a path to peace and more like an exercise in geopolitical theater. It prioritizes the symbolic roles of Trump and Blair both controversial in the region over meaningful Palestinian representation. By doing so, it risks deepening the very grievances that fuel instability.
The key question is whether Palestinians will be trusted to shape their own governance, or whether the “international community” continues to recycle old power brokers. Without Palestinian ownership, even the most technically efficient governance arrangement will lack legitimacy. And without legitimacy, stability in Gaza and the wider region will remain elusive.
In short, this proposal highlights a recurring problem: Western governments talk about empowering Palestinians while simultaneously placing them in the back seat of their own political future. The danger is not only that this approach will fail but that it will make a just peace even harder to achieve.
With information from Reuters.
*Sana Khan, MPhil student of International Relations at the National Defence University, Islamabad. Specializes in foreign policy and global strategic affairs, with research experience on China’s role in world politics and the Russia–Ukraine war.
Read also: https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/09/29/colonialism-and-tony-blair-again/