Israel objects to U.S.-led Gaza governance plan, raising diplomatic stakes

Israeli officials on Jan. 17 publicly objected to a White House announcement laying out next-phase governance arrangements for Gaza, saying the move was not coordinated with Israel and “ran counter to government policy.” The dispute focuses on the composition and mandate of a U.S.-backed transitional mechanism variously described as a Trump-chaired Board of Peace or an executive board, as well as U.S. proposals for a temporary international security force and a technocratic Palestinian administration in the enclave.

The White House circulated a draft U.N. resolution authorizing a roughly two-year governance and security mission empowered to disarm Hamas and envisaging a deployment of about 20,000 troops from partner states. U.S. officials have indicated the United States would not send ground forces and that the draft could move to a vote within weeks. Washington is also pressing for a transitional technocratic Palestinian administration in Gaza as part of a phased plan that U.S. officials say is now entering phase two.

Israeli leaders objected in particular to elements of the board’s makeup and to a reported U.S. push to allow 100 to 200 Hamas fighters trapped in a Rafah tunnel network to depart Gaza under a conditional amnesty tied to the plan. The government said Foreign Minister Gideon Saar would raise the matter with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The Israeli statement did not specify which board members or mandates it found objectionable, but Israeli officials have long opposed direct Turkish participation in Gaza, even as Ankara has played a role in facilitating talks.

The board announced by Washington reportedly includes Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, U.N. special coordinator Sigrid Kaag, an Israeli-Cypriot billionaire and a minister from the United Arab Emirates. The composition and mission have drawn broader international concern: Russia, China and several Arab states have signaled objections, and some governments have complained about the absence of a clear role for the Palestinian Authority. Those objections have amplified diplomatic friction between Washington, its regional partners and Israel over who will set security and governance rules in Gaza.

Humanitarian and security pressures underscore the difficulties ahead. Israel says it is allowing hundreds of trucks of aid into Gaza daily, but aid agencies and field reports indicate needs remain far from met. Violence and operational frictions persist: Israeli forces fatally shot three Palestinians near Rafah after accusing them of crossing a ceasefire demarcation line, and Israeli authorities transferred 45 Palestinian bodies to Gaza’s health ministry following a recent hostage exchange. Those incidents illustrate how fragile any peace implementation would be on the ground.

Economically, the plan raises immediate budgetary and market questions for contributing states and donors. A multinational security deployment and postconflict reconstruction would require substantial financing and coordination, stretching defense budgets and humanitarian pledges while adding risk premiums to regional markets. Political uncertainty could weigh on Israeli asset prices and the shekel, and complicate international fundraising for Gaza’s reconstruction.

With a U.N. vote possible within weeks, Israel’s formal diplomatic objection signals an intent to seek changes to the board’s composition and mandate. That push, together with regional reservations and the volatile security environment, leaves the U.S. plan facing steep political and operational hurdles before it can be implemented.