Why Trump's Offer To India To Join Gaza Board Of Peace Raises Red Flags - Explained

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced his acceptance of the invitation of US President Trump to become a member of the Board of Peace. Other nations that accepted the invitation include Kosovo, a country that hasn’t been recognised by half of the world; Pakistan, Turkey, Greece, Belarus, Egypt, UAE, Morocco, among others.

US President Donald Trump is all set to chair the signing of the Gaza Board of Peace at Davos. Many countries have accepted Trump’s invitation to join the board, while some are yet to make a decision. France has rejected the proposal, irking Trump, who threatened to impose 200% tariffs on French wine and champagne over the refusal to join the proposed ‘Board of Peace’. This is just a display of pure bullying from Trump, who wants to convey a message to the invitees that if they reject the proposal, they should be ready to face coercive action. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced his acceptance of the invitation of US President Trump to become a member of the Board of Peace. Other nations that accepted the invitation include Kosovo, a country that hasn’t been recognised by half of the world; Pakistan, Turkey, Greece, Belarus, Egypt, UAE, Morocco, among others.

Countries like France and Norway have rejected the proposal, while Russia and India are among the nations that are yet to announce their decision and are reviewing the proposal. 

Notably, the countries invited to Trump's ‘Board of Peace’ do not have to pay anything to join initially or for a standard three-year membership term. However, to secure a permanent seat (instead of the temporary three-year term), a country must contribute at least $1 billion in cash funds to the Board within the first year of the charter's activation. This contribution is described as voluntary in official statements, but it's the threshold for permanent status, with the funds reportedly going toward Gaza rebuilding efforts. 

What Is the Gaza Board of Peace?

The proposed Gaza Board of Peace is being projected as a multilateral platform aimed at overseeing post-war reconstruction and political stabilization in Gaza. According to available information, the board would bring together selected countries to coordinate funding, humanitarian assistance, infrastructure rebuilding, and governance support after the conflict.

However, several aspects of the initiative remain unclear and controversial. There is no clarity on its legal status – whether it would operate under the UN framework or bypass it. The decision-making process appears centralized, with the chairperson having wide discretion over membership and agenda. Critics argue the board lacks representation from Palestinian leadership and civil society, raising questions about legitimacy. Unlike traditional international bodies, permanent membership reportedly requires large financial contributions, blurring the line between diplomacy and transactional politics.

Experts warn that such a structure could undermine established international institutions like the United Nations and marginalize existing peace mechanisms. Instead of consensus-driven diplomacy, the board risks becoming a power-centric club shaped by geopolitical interests rather than humanitarian priorities.

A NATO Reminder

Now, who funded Gaza’s destruction? It was the United States after the Hamas terror attack on Israel. The US, as Israel’s biggest military backer, indirectly enabled the scale of destruction. Now to rebuild the city, Trump is asking others to pay. This is similar to Trump’s NATO move on Ukraine. Remember, after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the US became the largest direct donor of military aid to Kyiv, supplying weapons, ammunition, air defense systems, and training. However, under the administration of President Donald Trump in 2025, the approach changed. Instead of sending large amounts of US-funded equipment directly, Washington shifted towards a structure where European and other NATO allies would fund purchases of US weapons that would then go to Ukraine — effectively making allies pay for much of the war matériel that previously came out of US stocks at no direct cost to them. Instead of bilateral US donations, Washington began pressing NATO allies to shoulder more of the financial burden.

India’s Dilemma

India’s position on Gaza has always walked a delicate diplomatic tightrope. Historically, India has supported the Palestinian cause while advocating a two-state solution. India has backed UN resolutions calling for a ceasefire and humanitarian access in Gaza. At the same time, India has developed strong strategic and defence ties with Israel, deepening cooperation in technology, security and trade. India has also maintained growing relations with Arab nations and the Global South.

At the United Nations, India’s voting pattern reflects this balance as New Delhi often abstains on highly polarising resolutions and avoids openly condemning Israel while backing peace in Palestine.

Joining or rejecting the Gaza Board of Peace puts India in a diplomatic bind:

If India joins:
• It risks alienating Arab partners
• Faces domestic criticism for aligning with Western power blocs
• Appears to be bowing to Trump's bullying

If India rejects:
• Could strain relations with the US
• Miss an opportunity to influence policies surrounding Gaza, the Middle East
• Risk of being sidelined in global decision-making

For New Delhi, the choice is not ideological but strategic – how to protect national interests without losing moral credibility.

Cloud Surrounding Peace Board

The Gaza Board of Peace may be presented as a humanitarian initiative, but its structure, leadership model, and financial gatekeeping raise serious questions about intent and credibility. Peacebuilding cannot be reduced to elite boardrooms or financial thresholds – it requires inclusive dialogue, local representation, and international legitimacy.

For India, the decision is especially complex. Its diplomatic legacy, Global South leadership, and balanced foreign policy demand a carefully calibrated response. New Delhi must weigh whether joining such a forum genuinely serves peace or merely legitimizes a power-driven narrative.

Ultimately, real peace cannot be bought, chaired, or dictated. It must be negotiated, respected, and owned by the people most affected by the conflict. Any initiative that sidelines them – no matter how grand its name – risks becoming another diplomatic spectacle rather than a genuine step toward justice.