As Israel continues its war of extermination in Gaza with the death toll surpassing 65,000, more than 168,000 wounded, and thousands missing, another battle unfolds behind the scenes: who will govern Gaza after the war?
The plan advanced by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to establish a ‘Gaza International Transitional Authority’ (GITA) is not just a reconstruction proposal, but a comprehensive political project: placing Gaza under international trusteeship, cloaked in UN and legal legitimacy.
Documents, structural outlines, and proposed budgets raise serious questions about its intentions and likely outcomes.
What the plan actually proposes
Blair’s proposal centres on creating a supreme authority operating under a UN Security Council mandate for five transitional years.
It would be run by an international council of 7-10 members, including according to available documents a token Palestinian representative, alongside Western figures and business leaders.
This body would not merely manage projects but function as a ‘supreme political and legal authority’, empowered to issue binding legislation and oversee all governance structures in Gaza.
The proposed executive secretariat would supervise local ministries, but these would be staffed by technocrats appointed and monitored by the international authority.
On the security front, the plan calls for a multinational security force to guard borders and crossings, while a ‘demilitarised’ local police unit would manage civil order.
Economically, a Gaza Investment and Development Authority (GIPEDA) would run special economic zones and attract foreign capital to drive ‘reconstruction’ under an investment model.
Budgets reveal priorities
Security before reconstruction, and external management before sovereignty that is the essence of the proposed budget.
Large allocations go to civilian police and oversight bodies, while the costs of multinational forces and large-scale reconstruction (housing and infrastructure) are excluded from the operational budget, left instead to vague donor promises via a separate fund.
The documents also earmark offices in Cairo, al-Arish, or Amman, suggesting de facto external management.
This financial distribution shows that security and institutional control come before safe housing or restoring a local economy.
By making major reconstruction contingent on donor demands, the plan grants funders unprecedented power to dictate the shape of Gaza’s future economy and society.
Dangerous political implications
At its core, the Blair plan is not a temporary response to a humanitarian crisis but a bid to reimpose international custodianship replacing national governance with external dominance.
Symbolic Palestinian representation within a council dominated by Westerners and business elites ensures that political and economic decision-making remains in foreign hands, casting Palestinians as incapable of self-determination.
The provisions for a demilitarised local police and a multinational border force are mechanisms to neutralise Palestinian resistance and sever national factions, including the Palestinian Authority, from decision-making while securing Israel’s economic and security interests under the guise of ‘stability’.
Economically, the establishment of GIPEDA entrenches a new form of dependency, turning reconstruction into an investment platform that serves foreign private profit over rebuilding an independent society.
Most alarming is the proposed ‘property protection’ system and documentation of displaced persons’ holdings.
Through complex registration and legal mechanisms, it could legitimise permanent displacement and engineer Gaza’s demographic reality.
British writer David Hearst has described Blair’s plan as ‘doomed to fail and blind to Gaza as a Palestinian homeland’, adding that Blair has joined ‘the vultures feeding on the Palestinian holocaust’.
Journalist Ash Sarkar put it more bluntly: ‘The devil was busy, so Blair showed up,’ arguing that his role in White House talks is less about peace than about laundering ethnic cleansing.
Legal and political ambiguities
Though framed as a UN mandate, the plan’s legitimacy is questionable.
The Security Council has so far failed to enforce a ceasefire or protect civilians so can it truly be trusted to administer an entire population.
International law is clear: Gaza is occupied territory, and the occupying power Israel bears direct responsibility under the Fourth Geneva Convention for protecting civilians and rebuilding destroyed infrastructure.
A trusteeship imposed from above would not only relieve Israel of its obligations but also shield it from accountability.
Similarly, international law guarantees the right of occupied peoples to self-determination and even legitimises resistance.
Criminalising that right through enforced demilitarisation would directly contradict these principles.
Time-buying proposals and political manoeuvres
The plan has gained traction in certain US circles, reportedly linked to Jared Kushner and other influential figures.
For Israel, it serves a pragmatic purpose: creating new ‘facts on the ground’ for its security comfort, while keeping the issue of Palestinian sovereignty unresolved.
European and Arab capitals, however, voice concerns about sidelining Palestinians in their own future.
According to Haaretz, an Israeli official confirmed that the White House presented details of the plan to Netanyahu and other leaders, and that it enjoys ‘full support from Trump’.
While Israeli leaders have not rejected it outright, they remain cautious about giving the Palestinian Authority any significant role.
Meanwhile, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich openly spoke of ‘real estate wealth’ in Gaza, as Netanyahu maintains contact with Blair without formally committing.
Analysts note that Israel is using ‘day after’ debates to stall for time and entrench new realities.
Palestinian officials reject the plan outright.
Deputy Foreign Minister Omar Awadallah stressed: ‘Gaza is an integral part of the State of Palestine. We will not accept any plan that treats it as real estate or a financial investment for foreign companies while excluding Palestinians.’
Hamas declared Blair unwelcome, calling him a negative figure who should face trial for his role in the Iraq war.
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan dismissed the proposal outright, insisting: ‘There is no such thing as a Tony Blair plan.’
Al Jazeera journalist Jamal Rayyan added: ‘Blair’s crimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, and Afghanistan are not enough, now he is engineering post-war economic projects with Trump, funded by Arab states, to serve Israel’s security.’
Possible scenarios
If implemented as envisioned, Gaza would effectively become an externally run trusteeship.
Security and economic decision-making would shift to international structures and business interests, while local governance would be reduced to service provision with limited powers.
This scenario mirrors Israel’s long-term vision: retaining control of borders and strategic assets without bearing the responsibilities of its ongoing genocide.
Worse still, donor funding could be weaponised as political blackmail, with genuine reconstruction withheld unless Palestinians concede on political and demographic issues.
Such a model would deepen divisions, prolong suffering, and possibly provoke widespread grassroots resistance, political isolation of its backers, or outright failure in implementation.
The Palestinian alternative
The political, legal, and moral logic is clear: any just and sustainable solution cannot pass through externally imposed trusteeship.
It must begin with an immediate, unconditional end to the assault and blockade, and with Israel’s full withdrawal from Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem.
Only then can political negotiations rest on legitimate legal ground.
The only viable path forward is empowering a genuine Palestinian administration born of internal consensus, involving local political forces and civil society free from external tutelage that excludes popular will.
Reconstruction must not be reduced to an investment project serving foreign interests; it should be driven by Palestinian institutions with unconditional international support.
Equally essential is accountability: international mechanisms, including the ICC, must investigate and prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity. Without justice, neither peace nor stability is possible. And so, the essential question remains: who is Tony Blair to appoint himself ruler of Gaza?
Who grants him the legitimacy to decide? And how can Palestinians, the rightful owners of land and destiny be erased from their own future?
As British filmmaker Mark Adderley asked, how can the man who sowed chaos across the Middle East now be allowed to shape Palestine’s future?
