Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has agreed to an invitation by US President Donald Trump to join the newly formed “Board of Peace” emerging within the second phase of the ceasefire agreement for Gaza. However, this has caused an outrage among many people, given that an arrest warrant has been issued by the ICC for Netanyahu concerning allegations associated with war crimes committed in Gaza.
This was confirmed on Wednesday via a social media post by the Israeli PM’s office, which called the move part of Israel’s relevant engagement with the post-war governance debate. This move highlights the apparent contradiction implicit in the fact that a government official who has been accused of causing civilian damage in Gaza will not, apparently, remain on the periphery of decision-making with regard to future governance of the territory.
According to UN agencies, more than 30,000 Palestinians have been killed since the war began, with the majority identified as civilians, while over 70% of Gaza’s housing stock has been damaged or destroyed. The World Bank estimates reconstruction costs could exceed $40 billion, raising fundamental questions about legitimacy, accountability, and moral authority in post-conflict planning.
A Peace Mechanism or a Politically Curated Forum?
“The Board of Peace,” conceptualized and led by Trump, is intended to monitor capacity-building in governance, regional diplomacy, reconstruction, investment attraction, and massive capital mobilization in the Gaza Strip. The program looks similar to the international post-conflict instruments applied in Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. However, its structure, led by Trump, raises suspicions that instead of being a balanced international institution, the envisioned Board of Peace looks more like a selectively constructed setting reflecting US national strategic priorities.
Trump is set to personally oversee the membership within the board’s framework, going beyond the usual UN-led or Quartet framework. This approach is blamed for possibly overlooking international humanitarian standards for the benefit of geopolitical convenience, as the future of Gaza might be delegitimized within a US-led agency with no serious Palestinian or UN scrutiny.
Netanyahu’s inclusion is particularly contentious, given that his government has consistently rejected external investigations into the Gaza war and denounced the ICC as biased. His participation has therefore intensified fears that the board could normalize impunity rather than advance genuine reconciliation.
ICC-Indicted Leaders and the Normalization of Impunity
Netanyahu is not alone in receiving an invitation that puts him before international law. Vladimir Putin, Russia’s current president and someone who has been indicted by the ICC for forcing Ukrainian children to move during Russia’s nearly four-year war in Ukraine, has also been said to have been invited to join the board. The Kremlin has admitted to asking for confirmation on this from Washington.
Despite the controversy, the World Trade Organization sent invitations to the leaders of countries whose leaders stand accused of war crimes, including Russian President Vladimir Putin. The president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, another ally of Russian President Putin, was also rumored to be invited. Several leaders with war crimes allegations or sanctions have been urged to step down from the board.
Legal experts warn that such moves risk undermining the authority of international justice institutions at a time when civilian protection frameworks are already under severe strain. The ICC currently has 124 member states, including most of Europe, Canada, and Latin America—many of which would be legally obliged to arrest indicted individuals should they enter their territory.
Regional Tensions and Internal Israeli Discontent
Netanyahu’s decision to join the board comes despite earlier objections from his office regarding the executive committee’s composition—particularly the inclusion of Türkiye, a vocal critic of Israel’s Gaza campaign and a regional rival. Israeli officials previously stated that the committee was formed without coordination with Jerusalem and ran “contrary to Israeli policy,” though they stopped short of detailing specific objections.
The apparent reversal suggests political calculation rather than policy alignment. Domestically, Netanyahu faces mounting pressure from Israeli opposition figures, families of hostages, and segments of the security establishment, as well as ongoing corruption trials that have weakened his political standing. Participation in a US-led peace initiative offers a potential diplomatic shield and a platform to reframe Israel’s role internationally.
Who Is on the Board—and Who Is Missing?
Current board members reportedly include the UAE, Morocco, Vietnam, Belarus, Hungary, Kazakhstan and Argentina, with different political structures and no immediate interests in Gaza conflicts or reconstruction. The UK and the European Commission admit to having received invitations, but so far, no confirmation to attend has been made, illustrating the ambivalence among the more traditional partners of the west.
The executive board members include US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, special representative of the Trump administration Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan, World Bank President Ajay Banga, and Trump’s Deputy National Security Adviser Robert Gabriel. The listed members fail to include representation from the Palestinian government, Hamas (who were a party in the ceasefire agreement), or the United Nations, which lacks legitimacy, according to some officials.
The White House has also announced a separate Gaza Executive Board tasked with implementing the second phase of the ceasefire. Details about its mandate, enforcement mechanisms, and funding authority remain unclear.
A Peace Framework Without Accountability?
The fact that Netanyahu would be given a place on the “Board of Peace” is only the most dramatic expression of the central contradiction of this initiative-to engineer post-war stability while dodging outstanding questions of accountability, sovereignty, and representation. By propelling suspected war criminals into the role of peace designer, this framework runs the risk of solidifying a principle wherein it is power, not law, that dictates who designs post-conflict futures.
The legitimacy of any Gaza reconstruction effort, as it currently lies in ruins and millions stay displaced, will depend not only on funding and models of governance but on whether justice, international law, and Palestinian self-determination are meaningfully upheld—or quietly set aside in the name of political convenience.
