For long more this mess and killing
- In September 2025, under the leadership of Donald Trump, a 20-point “peace plan” for Gaza was unveiled. As part of the plan, an international transitional governing body — referred to as the Board of Peace — was proposed to oversee the post-war administration, reconstruction, and transitional governance of Gaza. ABC+2The Standard+2
- The plan reportedly envisioned that the “Board of Peace” would have strategic oversight over aid, reconstruction, and governance, until local institutions (such as the Palestinian Authority) were reformed and able to resume control. ABC+2The National+2
- The only name publicly attached at first to a leading role on the board was Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Trump publicly praised him as a “very good man.” The Standard+2The Guardian+2
- Blair accepted the general framework and expressed willingness to serve, with his think tank (the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, TBI) said to have contributed to components of the plan. The Business Standard+1
Why the Proposal Was Controversial — And What Changed
- Blair’s history is controversial in much of the Arab and Muslim world because of his role in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That war, led by the UK and U.S., remains deeply unpopular across the Middle East, and many still regard him as responsible for destabilisation. Daily Sun+2Tehran Times+2
- As the proposal gained traction, objections from several Arab and Muslim states grew. These states argued that Blair’s involvement would make any transitional authority deeply unpopular and unacceptable for many Palestinians and regional actors. Middle East Monitor+2The Guardian+2
- As a result, according to recent reports, Blair has been dropped from consideration for a leading role on the Board of Peace. While he may still retain a more limited or advisory position, he is no longer among the main candidates for central leadership. The Independent+2Middle East Monitor+2
- This decision reflects the political and diplomatic reality: for a transitional body overseeing Gaza, international legitimacy matters — and for many states and stakeholders, Blair’s legacy in Iraq undermined that legitimacy. The Guardian+2Middle East Monitor+2
Implications: What This Reveals — and What Might Come Next
Regional Sentiment and Trust
The exclusion of Blair shows that regional sentiment — especially among Arab and Muslim nations — remains deeply shaped by past events. For any peace plan to succeed, the transitional authority must be perceived as fair, legitimate, and free from the baggage of prior conflicts. As of now, many view Whit Blair’s record as disqualifying.
That suggests that future appointments to the Board of Peace will likely avoid figures associated with controversial interventions. Instead, leaders with neutral or less polarising backgrounds may be preferred.
Impact on the Gaza Peace Plan’s Viability
The controversy underscores how fragile any governance or reconstruction plan for Gaza is. If the key figure initially proposed to lead the process has to be dropped because of legitimacy concerns, that raises broader questions:
- Can the Board of Peace attract enough regional support to be effective?
- Will Palestinians — particularly in Gaza — accept an international governing body perceived as biased or contaminated by past conflicts?
- Could the process itself stall or be delegitimised before it begins?
All these questions put at risk the viability of the entire 20-point plan.
Lessons in Diplomacy and International Governance
The episode reveals a vital lesson: in high-stakes, post-war reconstruction efforts, past political actions — even decades old — remain relevant. Diplomats and policymakers cannot treat prior military or political controversies as irrelevant when designing future governance structures. Legitimacy, regional acceptance, and historical memory matter deeply.
What to Watch Going Forward
- Which names will now be considered for the Board of Peace — and whether they enjoy broader acceptance across the Arab and Muslim world.
- Whether a credible and representative transitional authority for Gaza can actually be formed, or whether continuing opposition will force a pivot in structure or leadership.
- How Palestinians in Gaza (and the wider region) respond: acceptance, resistance, or outright rejection.
- Whether the plan’s legal and political architecture includes enough representation, transparency, and respect for local autonomy to overcome deep-seated distrust.
Conclusion
The initial inclusion — and subsequent removal — of Tony Blair from the “Board of Peace” reveals the deep complexity behind any attempt at rebuilding Gaza and administering a transitional authority. A name may carry gravitas in one setting, but in this one, history, perception, and legitimacy proved fatal.
If peace and reconstruction efforts are to move forward with any hope of success, those involved must prioritise credibility, acceptance, and trust. The road ahead remains fraught — but for any lasting outcome, the world must listen carefully to the voices of the region, not just the architects of distant plans.
