The Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ Is Dividing the Globe

Netanyahu Reverses Course, Now Says Israel Will Join

by Alan Mosley | January 21, 2026

https://news.antiwar.com/2026/01/21/the-gaza-board-of-peace-is-dividing-the-globe/

A fractious global debate over the newly proposed Gaza “Board of Peace” has intensified as countries publicly declare whether they will participate in a U.S.-led body that its proponents say could oversee Gaza’s post-war reconstruction and, potentially, broader conflict resolution. European powers have split sharply over involvement, Middle Eastern governments are lining up to join, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reversed an earlier refusal to participate, agreeing to take Israel’s seat.

French, Scandinavian, and other Western European governments have been among the most vocal in declining invitations, citing concerns about the board’s mandate, structure, and potential to undercut established international institutions. France, Norway, Sweden, and Slovenia have announced they will not join at this time, rejecting both the board’s expanded ambition beyond Gaza and the requirement – articulated in draft terms shared with invited nations – to contribute roughly $1 billion for permanent membership status.

Paris’s refusal stems in part from worries that the board, as envisioned, would duplicate or weaken the United Nations’ roles on peace and reconstruction. European officials have warned that a parallel forum dominated by a single national leader could fragment international diplomacy and erode multilateral norms. Norway and Sweden similarly pointed to a lack of clarity about authority and oversight, choosing to withhold endorsement until those issues are resolved.

Other European states have not yet committed. Britain, Germany, Italy, and the executive arm of the European Union have each acknowledged invitations but stopped short of agreeing to join, leaving their positions open amid domestic debate over the board’s purpose and governance. Russia, China, and Ukraine similarly remain noncommittal, having received invitations but offering only preliminary assessments of the proposal.

By contrast, a swath of Middle Eastern and allied countries have accepted invitations to participate. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Turkey, and Pakistan are among those that have publicly signaled their intent to join the board. Several Central Asian and other non-Western nations – including Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Morocco, Kosovo, Armenia, Belarus, Indonesia, and Vietnam – are also planning to sign on.

Support from this cohort reflects a shared interest in stabilizing Gaza and shaping the narrative around regional recovery. For some, aligning with Washington’s initiative is also a strategic move to bolster bilateral ties and gain a voice in potential post-conflict arrangements. Morocco’s decision, for example, comes amid its recent diplomatic engagement across the region, even as public opinion at home remains wary of normalization trends.

The contrasting responses underscore a broader geo-political divide: Western European powers are cautious, seeing risks to the international order, while many Middle Eastern, African, and smaller states view the board as an opportunity to influence outcomes in Gaza and beyond. Countries in both groups have referenced the board’s $1 billion membership threshold as a significant consideration, with several declining precisely because they object to what they perceive as an exorbitant price for influence.

Israel’s Reversal

Israel’s position has been particularly notable. Initially, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government criticized the board’s structure, saying it was not adequately coordinated with Jerusalem and objecting to the composition of its executive committee – particularly the inclusion of representatives from countries seen as hostile to Israeli policy. Israeli officials indicated that these elements were “contrary to its policy,” and declined to commit to participation.

On January 21, however, Netanyahu’s office announced that Israel would join the Board of Peace, marking a reversal amid intense international discussion and ahead of an expected signing ceremony tied to the World Economic Forum in Davos. The move reflects a strategic calculation by Israel to retain influence in shaping Gaza’s future, even as the board’s mandate appears to be broadening beyond its original Gaza focus.

Netanyahu’s change of stance may also be aimed at balancing domestic political pressures with diplomatic imperatives. Critics within Israel – including hard-line ministers who argued for unilateral control over Gaza’s future – have warned that foreign oversight bodies could constrain national sovereignty. The prime minister’s decision to participate suggests a willingness to engage with the board’s processes despite these domestic tensions.

As the Board of Peace moves toward formal establishment, its contested reception highlights enduring fault lines in international diplomacy: competing visions of governance, questions about the cost and control of peacebuilding, and deep uncertainty about how best to end violence and rebuild societies.