THE GRIFT
Trump’s Gaza Peace Board Charter Seeks $1Bn For Extended Membership, Document Shows
.jpg)
By Arab News
A draft charter sent to about 60 countries by the US administration calls for members to contribute $1 billion in cash if they want membership on his new Board of Peace to last more than three years, according to the document seen by Reuters.
“Each Member State shall serve a term of no more than three years from this Charter’s entry into force, subject to renewal by the Chairman,” the document, first reported by Bloomberg News, shows.
“The three-year membership term shall not apply to Member States that contribute more than $1,000,000,000 in cash funds to the Board of Peace within the first year of the Charter’s entry into force.”
The board is described in the charter as “an international organization that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.”
It would become official once three member states agree to the charter.
The US president would also be responsible for approving the group’s official seal, the document said.
Trump has invited a number of world leaders, including Argentina’s Javier Milei and Canada’s Mark Carney, to be part of a Board of Peace for Gaza, which would be formed under the broader umbrella of his new peace board.
The plan attracted sharp criticism from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said the details hadn’t been coordinated with his country.
Washington (United States) (AFP) – US President Donald Trump's government has asked countries to pay $1.0 billion for a permanent spot on his "Board of Peace" aimed at resolving conflicts, according to its charter, seen Monday by AFP.
Issued on: 19/01/2026 - RFI
The White House has asked various world leaders to sit on the board, chaired by Trump himself, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, Hungarian premier Viktor Orban and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.
Member countries -- represented on the board by their head of state -- would be allowed to join for three years -- or longer if they paid more than $1.0 billion within the first year, the charter says.
"Each Member State shall serve a term of no more than three years from this Charter's entry into force, subject to renewal by the Chairman," the board's draft charter says.
"The three-year membership term shall not apply to Member States that contribute more than USD $1,000,000,000 in cash funds to the Board of Peace within the first year of the Charter’s entry into force."
The board was originally conceived to oversee the rebuilding of Gaza, but its charter does not appear to limit its role to the occupied Palestinian territory.
The White House said there would be a main board, a Palestinian committee of technocrats meant to govern devastated Gaza, and a second "executive board" that appears designed to have a more advisory role.
"The Board of Peace is an international organization that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict," the charter says.
'Failed institutions'
It appears to take a swipe at international institutions such as the United Nations, saying that the board should have "the courage to depart from approaches and institutions that have too often failed."
Trump has regularly criticized the United Nations and announced this month that his country will withdraw from 66 global organizations and treaties -- roughly half affiliated with the UN.
Membership of the board would be "limited to States invited to participate by the Chairman," according to the draft charter.
Trump would have the power to remove member states from the board, subject to a veto by two-third of members, and choose his replacement should he leave his role as chairman.
The "Board of Peace" began to take shape on Saturday when the leaders of Egypt, Turkey, Argentina and Canada were asked to join.
Trump also named as members Secretary of State Marco Rubio, former British prime minister Tony Blair, senior negotiator Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner.
Israel has objected to the line-up of a "Gaza executive board" to operate under the body, which includes Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and Qatari diplomat Ali Al-Thawadi.
© 2026 AFP
France sends food aid for babies to Gaza, remains ‘mobilised’ to end conflict
France is sending nearly 400 tonnes of food aid to Gaza specifically intended for malnourished babies and has called on Israel to lift obstacles to humanitarian aid into Gaza. France is one of 60 countries to receive an invitation to join US President Donald Trump’s "Board of Peace" to address the war in Gaza and other world conflicts.
Issued on: 19/01/2026 - RFI
A container ship carrying 383 tonnes of food aid left from France’s port of Le Havre on Sunday bound for Gaza, the French Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
The cargo is made up of Plumpy’doz, a nutritional supplement paste made of peanuts and milk powder intended treat malnutrition in young children, produced by Nutriset, a company based in Normandy.
The aid is intended to "improve the health of more than 42,000 Gazan children aged between six months and two years, who are suffering from malnutrition," the ministry said.
The ship is expected to arrive at Egypt’s Port Said in about ten days, and then it will be transported to Gaza by the World Food Programme.
Since 7 October 2023, France has delivered "more than 1,300 tonnes of humanitarian freight for civilian populations," the ministry noted.
Though Israeli strikes have been less intense since the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel began in October 2025, bombs still fall every day.
Israel and Hamas have repeatedly accused each other of violating the ceasefire's terms.
Calls for Israel to lift blocks on aid
With more than 80 percent of its infrastructure destroyed, Gaza is in shambles, and day-to-day living conditions remain precarious.
Aid workers say the humanitarian response remains insufficient due to access restrictions imposed by Israeli authorities, who deny these claims.
France insisted that Israel must lift obstacles so that the United Nations and NGOs "can continue to deliver humanitarian aid independently and impartially throughout the Gaza Strip."
"France is fully mobilised for the people of Gaza," French President Emmanuel Macron posted on social media platform X.
Medical charity MSF says may have to halt Gaza operations in March
'Board of Peace'
Meanwhile, France was one of the countries officially invited to join US President Donald Trump’s "Board of Peace" initiative aimed at overseeing the end of the conflict in Gaza, which would be expanded to resolve conflicts globally.
Some 60 countries have been invited to join for three-year terms, which can become permanent memberships for $1 billion (€857 million).
A mandate for a Board of Peace was authorised by the United Nations Security Council in November, but only through 2027 and solely focused on the Gaza conflict.
Russia and China, two veto wielding powers, abstained, complaining that the resolution did not give the UN a clear role in the future of Gaza.
Trump’s proposal said "durable peace requires pragmatic judgment, common-sense solutions, and the courage to depart from approaches and institutions that have too often failed".
There was a "need for a more nimble and effective international peace-building body", it added.
Several governments appeared reluctant to make public statements about the proposal, leaving officials to express concerns anonymously about the impact on the work of the UN.
(with newswires)
"Peace Board” Is Another Brick in His Personal Occidental Empire
His Gaza proposal reveals a far larger and world-threatening project. It’s a bid to replace the UN— and this MAGAlomania must be stopped now
Original photo by FoxNews
There are moments in political life when the surface events are so loud, so chaotic, so distracting that they obscure the deeper shift taking place beneath them. We focus on the headlines, the personalities, the daily provocations — and miss the architecture being built in the background.
But every once in a while, a document appears, a proposal emerges, or a pattern becomes visible enough that it forces us to stop, step back, and look at the larger design.
Trump’s so‑called “Board of Peace” is one of those moments.
It is not the outburst of an impulsive leader. It is not a one‑off improvisation. It is a window into a political project that has been unfolding for years — a project that treats institutions as disposable, alliances as leverage, and entire regions as assets in a personal geopolitical domain.
A project that is no longer hiding its contours. A project that now speaks openly in the language of authority, hierarchy, and replacement.
The charter of Donald Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace,” revealed by Haaretz on January 17, 2026, is not a Gaza policy. It is not even a Middle East policy. It is the latest — and clearest — expression of a long‑running project that has defined Trump’s political style for years: the construction of what I describe as a Personal Occidental Empire, a sphere of influence built not on institutions or alliances but on personal (narcissist) authority, loyalty networks, and transactional dependency.
The Gaza initiative is simply the newest brick in that architecture.
According to Haaretz, the charter was quietly sent to around 60 heads of state. Yet the document itself does not mention Gaza at all. Instead, it claims a sweeping mandate to “restore dependable and lawful governance and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict,” and — in a phrase that should alarm every democratic government — to do so “in place of other organizations.”
This is not a reconstruction committee. It is a claim to global jurisdiction, but only over the parts of the world Trump considers within his reach.
This logic is not new. It is the same logic that drove his attempts to buy Greenland, pressure Canada, threaten Mexico with military action, make himself a Viceroy in Venezuela, and reshape NATO into a loyalty‑based protection racket.
These were not random provocations. They were early signals of a worldview in which Western states and territories are not partners but assets — components of a personal geopolitical domain.
Trump’s charter makes the architecture explicit. It opens with a denunciation of existing international structures, calling for “a more nimble and effective international peace‑building body” and urging the world to abandon “institutions that have too often failed.” This is not the language of reform. It is the language of replacement — a hallmark of Trump’s broader governing style, in which established institutions are treated as obstacles to be bypassed, hollowed out, or supplanted by leader‑controlled alternatives.
But the most revealing feature of the charter is its structure of authority.
As Haaretz reports, the chairmanship is not tied to the U.S. presidency, not subject to elections, and not limited by term. It simply states: “Donald J. Trump shall serve as inaugural Chairman of the Board of Peace.” From that point on, the document reads like the constitution of a personal dominion.
Trump alone would invite or expel member states, appoint or dismiss the executive board, veto decisions at will, create or dissolve subsidiary bodies, interpret the charter, and even dissolve the entire organisation. He would also designate his own successor.
This is not multilateralism. It is not even unilateralism. It is personal rule — the defining feature of Trump’s broader political project.
Membership rules reinforce the pattern. While most states would serve three‑year terms, Haaretz notes that countries contributing more than $1 billion in the first year would be exempt from term limits. In other words: pay enough, and you can stay indefinitely — as long as the chairman approves. This is not sovereign equal cooperation; it is a transactional hierarchy, entirely consistent with Trump’s long‑standing preference for loyalty networks and personal dependency.
And crucially: this empire is selective. Trump is not trying to build a universal body. He is not trying to include Russia, China, Iran, or any state that would resist personal subordination. His empire is Western, Atlantic, and strategically convenient — a sphere of influence composed of states he believes he can bend, pressure, or purchase. And regions where he can build his United States of Autarchy if and when the world has turned its back on him and the US.
Seen through this lens, the Gaza “peace” board is not an aberration. It is a continuation. It reflects the same logic that shaped his approach to Greenland, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, NATO, and Europe. The charter simply makes the architecture visible: a system in which institutions are not independent actors but instruments of his personal authority, excercise in 100% defiance of laws, norms and normal respect for others.
What the Gaza “peace” board exposes is not a sudden improvisation but the underlying architecture of a political project that has been unfolding for years.
The pattern is unmistakable: a leader who treats institutions as disposable, alliances as leverage, and entire regions as assets in a personal geopolitical domain. It is the logic of a Personal Occidental Empire — a sphere of influence defined not by shared values or collective security but by proximity to one man’s authority.
This could never become a new United Nations. It is not even an alternative multilateralism. It is an empire without a fixed territory but with all the familiar features: hierarchy, dependency, loyalty, and the steady erosion of institutional constraints.
The Gaza charter simply strips away the last remaining ambiguity. It shows, in black and white, a system in which global authority is concentrated in the hands of a single individual, insulated from elections, oversight, or constitutional limits. It reveals a worldview in which international governance is not a shared responsibility but a personal prerogative. And it demonstrates how easily the language of “peace” can be repurposed to legitimize structures of power that have nothing to do with peace at all.
And here is where most geo-political commentators have understood so little:
The old disciplines can no longer explain what we are living through; only psychology/psychiatry, theology, philosophy — and perhaps the inspiration from (science) fiction and the Theatre of the Absurd — may be able to help.
A warning
We are not reliving the 1930s, and I disagree strongly with geopolitical and other people who predict World War Three to vent their own fears, but do not think of how they deprive their readers of the wish to do something and how they prevent every discussion of solutions and constructive visions for the world.
If this is the direction of the coming years, then the international system is not facing a policy disagreement or a diplomatic rupture. It is facing the emergence of a personalised, extra‑state authority structure that seeks to reorder Western politics around the will of a single leader and tendentially confront everybody else, friends and foes.
We are not reliving the 1930s, and I thoroughly disagree with all the geopolitical experts who predict World War 3. They have no theory behind that claim, but merely vent their own frustrations, deprive people of hope and the will to act, and make it impossible to discuss solutions and visions of a better future for humanity.
That said, some of the structural pressures that once led to global conflict are re‑emerging in new forms – and, no, Trump does not appear yet in military uniform, albeit now with a golden fighter aircraft as a lapel pin. Western militarism is as rampant as it is destructive for the West itself.
The lesson of history is to act before such pressures become irreversible. Or we shall again conclude that the only thing we can learn from history is that we learn nothing from it.
The question is no longer whether this project exists. The question is whether anyone will recognise it in time — and whether the world is prepared to confront the dangers it poses.
Trump Announces His Gaza ‘Board of Peace;’ It’s Just as Bad as You’d Imagine
On January 16 the Trump administration unveiled a new body to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction and governance. The so‑called “Board of Peace,” Trump promised, would guide a technocratic committee through the next phase of the faux-ceasefire and help rebuild a territory devastated by nearly two years of war. The board’s founding members include former British prime minister Tony Blair, Trump’s son‑in‑law Jared Kushner, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and real‑estate developer‑turned‑special envoy Steve Witkoff; private‑equity executive Marc Rowan, World Bank president Ajay Banga and US deputy national security adviser Robert Gabriel round out the list. These appointees are tasked with overseeing governance capacity‑building, regional relations, reconstruction and large‑scale funding. Bulgarian diplomat Nickolay Mladenov, a former UN official, will serve as the high representative for Gaza.
Supporters describe the arrangement as a pragmatic interim solution. Critics see something far more sinister. Experts contend that the plan resembles a colonial administration, likening it to “imperialism masquerading as a peace process,” and noting that it is “regrettably reminiscent of colonial practices”. Overseeing an occupied territory through an international board chaired by the very power that funds the war, with no meaningful Palestinian representation, sounds less like self‑determination than viceroyalty.
What makes the Board of Peace truly alarming is not only its structure but its personnel. Most of the appointees have records that make a mockery of impartiality and peace. They represent governments and industries that have bankrolled and executed wars across the Middle East. Gazans, rights advocates, and international analysts have asked why those responsible for devastation should supervise reconstruction. A closer look at each member clarifies their conflicts of interest.
Tony Blair: The Iraq war’s evangelist
Tony Blair, Britain’s prime minister during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, is widely condemned for his role. He is considered a “war criminal” in much of the Arab world. Many Palestinians regard his inclusion as “ridiculous” and “too toxic,” while one British lawmaker called it “outrageous”. Blair’s tenure as the Quartet’s Middle East envoy produced little progress and he is seen as biased toward Israel. Gazans view his appointment – by the country that invaded Iraq – as an insult.
Blair’s unsuitability runs deeper than personal reputation. In early 2025 he joined Israeli and American strategists in developing the war plan for Gaza and was touted as a potential “governor‑general” of the territory. Trump himself mused about ethnic cleansing and a glitzy “Gaza Riviera,” an idea Blair did not publicly reject. At the same time, Israel was flattening Gaza City and starving its residents. Far from acting as a neutral mediator, Blair has long aligned himself with the war on terror, promoting policies that entrench occupation and ignore Palestinian rights.
Jared Kushner: nepotism and real‑estate fantasies
Jared Kushner’s 2019 “Deal of the Century” was widely boycotted and dismissed by Palestinians as a $50 billion bribe because it ignored the occupation and offered inducements to bury refugees’ rights. Although the plan touted huge investment figures, most of the money would have gone to regional governments and private investors, with the Palestinian share arriving as loans and conditional on surrendering claims to return to their homes. Recognizing this, Palestinian leaders boycotted the Manama workshop designed to promote the deal. Kushner’s close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his role in moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem underscored the plan’s pro‑Israel bias.
Kushner’s subsequent comments reveal a mindset that treats Gaza as a real‑estate opportunity. In a Harvard interview he said the enclave’s waterfront property could be “very valuable” if residents were moved out so Israel could “clean it up,” lamenting that money had gone into tunnels and munitions instead of “education and innovation”. He suggested temporarily relocating Palestinians to the Negev desert while bulldozing Gaza, promising that they could move back later.
Marco Rubio: hawk as diplomat
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has consistently echoed Israel’s war aims. During a 2025 visit to Jerusalem he vowed to destroy Hamas and refused to discuss a ceasefire. He warned allies that recognizing a Palestinian state would make peace less likely and insists Gaza has no future until Hamas is eliminated. Such hawkish rhetoric mirrors Israel’s agenda rather than that of an impartial diplomat.
Rubio’s wider worldview is equally belligerent. He argues that violence in the region stems from Iran’s ambitions, advocates “maximum pressure” sanctions and rejects re‑entry into the nuclear deal. He labels Hezbollah a “full‑blown agent of Iran,” calls wiping out its leadership and the neighborhoods around it a “service to humanity,” and champions regime change. His bellicosity is matched by his donors: he has taken over $1 million from pro‑Israel groups and hundreds of thousands from the US weapons industry. Little wonder he sees war, rather than diplomacy, as the solution.
Steve Witkoff: real‑estate mogul and ethics train wreck
Steve Witkoff is a luxury real‑estate developer with no diplomatic experience. He and Trump secured a $2 billion investment from Abu Dhabi for their private cryptocurrency venture, a deal that has raised red flags among ethics officials because federal officers may not accept payments from foreign governments. Witkoff still holds a stake in the firm and has yet to divest fully; former ethics advisers note that reaping profits from an official post appears to violate both the Emoluments Clause and Office of Government Ethics regulations. None of this has stopped him from acting as a peace envoy, underscoring how the board rewards business ties and loyalty rather than impartiality or expertise.
His foray into diplomacy has been equally troubled. In Gaza, he misjudged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and failed to extend or renew a ceasefire. In Ukraine and Iran he offered concessions to Russia and Tehran only to walk them back amid criticism, showing a lack of grasp over complex regional dynamics. He has acknowledged that he entered the role naive and has been “boning up” on diplomacy by reading books and watching documentaries. Entrusting Gaza’s reconstruction to a developer still learning on the job illustrates the board’s priorities: personal connections and profit trump the qualifications needed to secure a just and lasting peace.
Marc Rowan: billionaire activist for Israel
Marc Rowan, CEO of Apollo Global Management, is an outspoken pro‑Israel donor who has mobilized his vast fortune to punish institutions that do not toe his line on Israel. When the University of Pennsylvania hosted a Palestinian literary festival, he spearheaded an alumni revolt, urging wealthy donors to withdraw support and send only token contributions to the school. Other billionaires followed his lead. Rowan linked the festival’s authors to ethnic cleansing but offered no evidence; the student newspaper could not corroborate his claims. This campaign undermined academic freedom and mirrored the very boycott tactics he decries.
His entanglements extend well beyond campus politics. Rowan became a major Trump donor after Apollo lent $184 million to the Kushner family’s real‑estate business. He privately asked federal officials to relax collateral requirements on junk bonds at the height of the pandemic to protect his investments. At the same time he poured money into politicians who advocate austerity and deregulation. His behavior reveals a pattern: using political influence to protect his balance sheet while squeezing institutions that challenge pro‑Israel orthodoxy. Placing such a figure on a peace board suggests that financial interests and ideological conformity matter more than Gaza’s welfare.
Ajay Banga: privatizing reconstruction
Ajay Banga’s nomination to lead the World Bank drew criticism from civil society groups, who argue that his corporate pedigree at Mastercard, Citigroup, PepsiCo, and Nestlé signifies a bias toward private‑sector solutions. At Mastercard he championed predatory financing schemes; in South Africa, a government social‑grant distribution project partnered with Net1 led to beneficiaries being saddled with exploitative fees and irregular lending practices. Rather than acknowledge harm, Banga has doubled down on leveraging private capital, arguing that there is not enough money for development without mobilizing investors.
Critics note that the same “gentleman’s agreement” that guaranteed an American at the helm of the World Bank installed Banga with little transparency. Jeff Hauser observes that the corporations he has led exacerbate inequality and do not promote shared prosperity. His plan to attract five dollars of private investment for every dollar of aid recasts reconstruction as an opportunity for profit rather than a humanitarian imperative. Such a framework risks transforming Gaza into a testing ground for neoliberal experiments, privileging investors over displaced families.
Robert Gabriel: political operative
Robert Gabriel, a deputy national security adviser, is a political operative. His career has been devoted to advancing the far‑right agenda rather than diplomacy. He served as a policy adviser for Stephen Miller during Trump’s first campaign and helped craft some of the administration’s harshest immigration speeches. Later he joined Miller in the White House as a special assistant before moving to Fox News, where he produced segments for Laura Ingraham’s primetime show and honed talking points attacking refugees and Muslims. This background signals not only a lack of experience in conflict resolution but an ideological hostility toward the very population he is meant to help.
More recently Gabriel worked closely with Susie Wiles, the campaign manager credited with orchestrating Trump’s comeback, and ran Gabriel Strategies, a consultancy that drew millions from Trump‑aligned committees. His appointment to the Gaza board cements the transformation of US foreign policy into an extension of domestic political operations. It underscores that the board’s purpose is not to listen to Palestinians but to reinforce Trumpian narratives and reward loyalists. As a result, Gabriel’s presence all but guarantees that decisions will be filtered through partisan politics, not humanitarian needs.
US funding fuels the war
Any assessment of the board must grapple with the fact that the United States is not a neutral broker. US military aid to Israel since October 2023 has reached about $21.7 billion, and Israel’s fleet of F‑15s, F‑16s, F‑35s and most attack helicopters are US‑supplied. Additional operations push total US spending above $31 billion, while more than one‑tenth of Gaza’s population has been killed or injured and over five million people displaced. Analysts note that Israel would be “hard pressed” to sustain its assault without US weapons and logistics and warn that continued support risks dragging Washington into a wider war. It has also been pointed out that Israel’s wars in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran could not continue without US backing. In short, the architects of the Board of Peace come from the very country financing the destruction they now claim to repair.
A farcical peace
The Board of Peace cannot be understood in isolation from this context. It is a US‑led project staffed by individuals whose records include launching wars, profiting from regional instability, and advocating for Israel’s military objectives. It excludes the people of Gaza, treats the territory as a laboratory for neoliberal reconstruction, and assumes that peace can be dictated from Washington, London, and Wall Street. Meanwhile, Israeli bombs continue to fall, a blockade prevents basic relief, and US taxpayers bankroll the assault.
This arrangement offends both moral sensibilities and constitutional principles. Those who believe in self‑government should recoil at a foreign board imposed on an occupied land. Those who oppose endless wars should note that the same officials who championed the invasion of Iraq, proposed ethnic cleansing in Gaza, and call for the eradication of Hamas now style themselves as peace‑builders. If this board accomplishes anything, it will be to launder responsibility for ongoing atrocities. Genuine peace for Gaza will not come from imperial committees or private‑equity funds; it will come when the bombing stops, the blockade ends, and Palestinians regain control over their own future.
Alan Mosley is a historian, jazz musician, policy researcher for the Tenth Amendment Center, and host of It’s Too Late, “The #1 Late Night Show in America (NOT hosted by a Communist)!” New episodes debut every Wednesday night at 9ET across all major platforms; just search “AlanMosleyTV” or “It’s Too Late with Alan Mosley.”
No comments:
Post a Comment