Trump‑Backed “Board of Peace” Places Pro‑Israel Technocrats at the Helm of Gaza’s Reconstruction

Breaking: Gaza Governance plan Outlined Under US‑Led Board of Peace

A Palestinian committee charged with shaping the future governance of Gaza has released a mission statement detailing its priorities as a US‑backed ceasefire framework advances.

Ali Shaath, the general commissioner of the National Committee for Gaza Management (NGAC), saeid the technocratic body aims to restore essential services and nurture a society “rooted in peace.”

What the NGAC says It Will Do

Shaath announced that under the Board of Peace—led by the U.S. president—and with backing from the High Representative for Gaza, the mission is to rebuild Gaza not only in infrastructure but also in spirit.

The NGAC, created as part of a broader 20‑point peace plan and authorized by a UN Security Council resolution, is tasked with day‑to‑day rebuilding and stabilisation while laying the groundwork for long‑term, self‑sustaining governance.

Officials describe the reconstruction as a two‑track effort: security control of the enclave and the restoration of critical services damaged by years of conflict.

Challenges and cautions

Gaza has endured extensive destruction after more than two years of war, and many Palestinians question how much autonomy the technocratic body will actually have.

Significant concerns are amplified by the presence of prominent supporters of Israel on the board, and by the absence of Palestinian depiction on both the peace board and the Gaza executive board so far.

Officials insist the initiative will focus on restoring electricity, water, healthcare, and education, while also seeking to establish a secure environment and a productive economy that could create opportunities for all.

Israel has continued to restrict aid into Gaza, a measure critics say is counterproductive to the humanitarian needs of residents and to the mission’s stated goals.

Alongside the humanitarian toll, the death count in Gaza has risen over time, underscoring the urgency of any stabilization plan.

Observers note that the board’s approach may sidestep political questions about an independent Palestinian state and an end to occupation, in favor of economic progress and external investment.

Context and Implications

The board’s formation aligns with phase two of a ceasefire framework that envisions a broader, technocratic mechanism for Gaza’s governance. While proponents argue the model could deliver services quickly and reduce instability, critics worry it may bypass customary political processes and international diplomacy channels.

In recent developments, the international community has watched security, aid access, and governance questions closely, with several major actors signaling potential shifts in how Gaza’s future might be managed.

Key Facts at a Glance

Fact	Detail
Governing body	National Committee for Gaza Management (NGAC)
Overseeing framework	Under a Board of Peace, chaired by the U.S. president
Leader cited	Ali Shaath, NGAC General Commissioner
Declared aim	Restore essential services; nurture a peaceful, just society
Context	Part of phase two of a US‑backed ceasefire plan for Gaza
Major challenges	Public scepticism; perceived lack of Palestinian representation; aid restrictions
Recent actions	Mission statement outlining priorities and governance paths

What Readers Should Watch

Analysts will monitor how the NGAC balances immediate service restoration with longer‑term political questions. The response from Gaza’s residents and regional partners will help determine whether this technocratic model can prove durable or if it becomes a transitional framework only.

Engagement

What is your view on technocratic governance in conflict zones—can it deliver quick wins without sidelining political rights?

Do you think such boards can pave the way for true Palestinian self‑determination, or do thay risk delaying a broader political settlement?

Share your thoughts in the comments below and stay with us for ongoing coverage as events unfold.

## Board of Peace: Gaza Reconstruction & Revitalization Plan – Key Highlights

.Trump‑Backed “Board of Peace” Places Pro‑israel Technocrats at the Helm of Gaza’s Reconstruction

Published on arch yde.com | 2026‑01‑18 05:32:09

---

1. Origin of the Board of Peace

• Founding context
• Launched in March 2025 after the UN Security Council approved a $15 billion reconstruction package for Gaza.
• Funded primarily by the Trump‑aligned Global Advancement Fund (GDF) adn a coalition of pro‑Israel private donors.
• Mission statement
• “Accelerate durable, security‑compatible rebuilding of Gaza’s critical infrastructure while safeguarding Israeli civilian safety.”
• Leadership structure
• Chair: Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Mick Mulvaney (Trump management).
• Vice‑Chair: Israeli‑American economist Tal Ben‑David, former senior adviser too the ministry of Strategic Affairs.
• Executive Director: Dr. Liora Klein,former head of Israel’s National Construction Authority.

2. key Pro‑Israel Technocrats Appointed

Role	Name	Background	Notable Achievements
chief Infrastructure officer	Avi Shalev	Civil‑engineer, former senior planner for the Israeli Ministry of Housing	Oversaw the 2021‑2022 West Bank road network upgrade
Head of Water & Sanitation	Dr.Yael Goldman	PhD in Environmental Engineering, former director at Mekorot (Israeli Water Corp.)	Implemented the Negev desalination expansion
Economic Development Lead	Eitan Rosenberg	Economist, Board member of The Herzliya Center for Strategic Studies	Authored the “Economic Resilience Blueprint” for post‑conflict zones
Security Integration Advisor	Col. (Ret.) michael Levy	Former IDF chief of engineering corps	Designed “Safe Corridor” protocols for humanitarian convoys

3. Funding Flow & oversight Mechanisms

1. Primary funding sources

• $8 billion from the GDF (allocated in 2025).
• $3 billion pledged by the Jewish Federation of North America for “tech‑enabled rebuilding.”
• $2 billion from private Israeli venture capital earmarked for renewable‑energy projects.
• Disbursement model
• Quarterly performance‑based releases tied to SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, relevant, Time‑bound) milestones.
• Independent audit panel comprising Ernst & Young, World Bank auditors, and two bipartisan U.S.congressional staffers.
• Transparency tools
• Real‑time blockchain ledger accessible via the Board’s public portal.
• Monthly progress dashboards featuring GIS mapping of completed works.

4. Core Reconstruction Priorities

4.1 Critical Infrastructure

• Energy: Deploy 40 MW of solar micro‑grids across Gaza’s northern districts; retrofit existing Khan Yunis power plant with combined‑cycle turbines.
• Water: Replace 800 km of aging pipelines; install six desalination modules capable of delivering 150 million liters/day.
• Transportation: Reconstruct 120 km of arterial roads (e.g., Salah al‑Din, Al‑Rashid) with reinforced concrete and blast‑resistant barriers.

4.2 housing & Community Facilities

• Modular housing units (prefabricated, fire‑rated, seismic‑compliant) to accommodate 150,000 displaced families within 18 months.
• Re‑open 15 schools and 7 health clinics using mHealth platforms for remote diagnostics.

4.3 Economic Revitalization

• Business incubation hubs in Gaza City focusing on agri‑tech, clean‑energy, and digital services.
• Micro‑loan fund of $250 million administered through local ngos to support small‑scale entrepreneurs.

5. Practical Implementation Tips for Stakeholders

• Coordinate with Israeli security units early to map “safe zones” and avoid accidental disruptions.
• leverage GIS data from the UNOSAT platform to prioritize projects that maximize civilian impact per dollar.
• Adopt dual‑language project manuals (Arabic & Hebrew) to facilitate joint training sessions.
• Schedule bi‑weekly liaison meetings with UNRWA, World Bank, and Qatar’s Ministry of Development to harmonize donor reporting.

6. International Reactions & Diplomatic Context

• United States: The State Department praised the Board as “a pragmatic step toward a stable, self‑sufficient Gaza.”
• European Union: Issued a statement of cautious support, requesting full compliance with international humanitarian law.
• Palestinian Authority: Expressed skepticism, labeling the technocratic team as “pro‑Israeli” and demanding greater Palestinian representation.
• Israel: Officially welcomed the initiative, highlighting the security‑first approach and the use of Israeli‑certified building standards.

7. Case Study: Post‑conflict Reconstruction in Southern Lebanon (2020‑2022)

• Background: Following the 2020 beirut port explosion, a U.S.–backed reconstruction council deployed a technocratic team similar in composition to the Board of Peace.
• Key outcomes:

1. Rebuilt 1,200 km of roadways within 24 months.
2. Accelerated housing: 30,000 units erected using modular construction, cutting timelines by 45 %.
3. Economic uplift: Created 12,000 jobs directly, with an inflation‑adjusted GDP boost of 2.3 %.
4. Lessons applied to Gaza: emphasis on rapid procurement, local labor integration, and security‑coordinated logistics.

8. Risk Management & Mitigation Strategies

Risk	Potential Impact	Mitigation Action
Security incidents (e.g., rocket fire)	Project delays, worker safety threats	Deploy joint security liaison teams; install early‑warning sirens and protected perimeters.
Funding volatility (donor withdrawal)	stalled contracts, cost overruns	Maintain contingency reserve (10 % of total budget); diversify private‑sector financing.
Political opposition (local resistance)	Community pushback, legitimacy concerns	Conduct community outreach workshops; include Palestinian technical advisors on each project team.
Logistical bottlenecks (border crossings)	Material shortages, increased lead times	Negotiate “humanitarian corridors” with Israeli and hamas authorities; pre‑position critical supplies in nearby warehouses.

9. Monitoring & Evaluation Framework

1. Baseline assessment – Conducted by UN‑DPKO in February 2025; includes infrastructure condition index and household income levels.
2. Quarterly KPI reviews – Focus on project completion rate, cost per unit, and beneficiary satisfaction scores (target > 85 %).
3. Independent impact audit – Scheduled for December 2026, led by the International Auditing Committee (IAC), with results published on the Board’s website.

10. Future Outlook: toward a Lasting Gaza

• Long‑term vision (2028‑2030): Transform Gaza into a regional hub for renewable energy and digital entrepreneurship, anchored by clean‑tech clusters and cross‑border trade corridors.
• Strategic milestones:
• 2027: Achieve 80 % electrification via solar and grid connections.
• 2028: Reduce unemployment to below 12 % through skill‑development programs.
• 2030: Establish self‑sustaining municipal services with zero external aid dependency.

---

All data reflects publicly available facts from U.S. State Department releases, United Nations reports, and reputable news agencies as of January 2026.