Imagine a scenario where a former British Prime Minister takes the helm of a transitional authority in Gaza—sounds intriguing, right? Well, that’s exactly what the White House is reportedly supporting. According to various Israeli media outlets, there’s a proposal for Tony Blair to lead a temporary administration in the Gaza Strip, at least initially without the direct involvement of the Palestinian Authority (PA).
This initiative, known as the Gaza International Transitional Authority (Gita), would position Blair as the "supreme political and legal authority" in Gaza for a period of up to five years. The concept draws inspiration from the transitional administrations that guided Timor-Leste and Kosovo as they moved toward statehood. The plan suggests that Gita could initially operate from el-Arish, an Egyptian city close to Gaza’s southern border, before eventually establishing a presence within Gaza itself, supported by a UN-endorsed multinational force primarily composed of Arab nations. The ultimate goal is to unify all Palestinian territories under the PA.
Importantly, this plan assures that Palestinians would not be forced to leave their homes, a concern that had arisen from earlier U.S. proposals that envisioned transforming Gaza into a luxurious "Gaza Riviera."
If this plan moves forward, Blair would oversee a secretariat of up to 25 individuals and lead a seven-member board responsible for managing the executive operations of the territory. However, the prospect of Blair taking on such a role is bound to ignite significant debate. Since stepping down as Prime Minister in 2007, he served as the Middle East envoy until 2015 and has maintained a favorable relationship with many leaders in the Gulf region. Yet, he is also deeply unpopular among many Palestinians, who view him as an obstacle to their aspirations for statehood, and his support for the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq has left a lasting negative impression across the region.
Some Western diplomats have indicated that Blair’s leadership of the interim administration is not a certainty, and the duration of this administration might only be two years. They also noted that the Trump administration's plan for the aftermath is closely tied to achieving a ceasefire and a comprehensive deal regarding hostages.
The emergence of this proposal comes shortly after the UN General Assembly endorsed a different approach, advocating for a technocratic administration to govern Gaza. This alternative, referred to as the New York Declaration, suggests that the interim administration would function for just one year, with the clear expectation of transitioning power to a reformed PA following elections for a new president and parliament.
The absence of a defined timeline for transitioning control back to the PA under the White House’s plan could pose a significant hurdle to gaining acceptance from Palestinians and Arab leaders. However, the lack of specificity might also serve as a comfort to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The White House views this new proposal as a middle ground between Donald Trump’s earlier suggestion that the U.S. and Israel could "take over" Gaza and the New York Declaration, which has received backing from over 140 nations. Trump’s previous comments about "cleaning out" Palestinians from Gaza raised serious concerns about ethnic cleansing, but this new plan reportedly ensures that Palestinians would not be encouraged to leave their territory.
During a recent meeting in New York, Trump outlined a broader version of the U.S.-backed plan to key leaders from various Arab nations, including the Emir of Qatar, the Saudi Foreign Minister, the King of Jordan, the President of Indonesia, and Turkey’s President. Trump expressed optimism about the discussions, stating, "we’re close to getting some kind of deal done."
French President Emmanuel Macron has been working to reconcile the two competing proposals. Arab nations have made it clear that they will only contribute to a UN-mandated international peacekeeping force if there is a definitive political timeline for establishing a Palestinian state. Some critics may argue that the Blair plan does not provide a clear path to statehood, but rather represents a different form of occupation that is less aggressive than the current Israeli presence.
Gita would consist of a board of seven to ten members, including at least one qualified Palestinian representative—potentially from the business or security sectors—a senior UN official, and prominent international figures with experience in executive or financial roles, ensuring a strong representation of Muslim members.
An executive secretariat would oversee a group of five commissioners responsible for key governance areas in Gaza, such as humanitarian affairs, reconstruction, legislation, legal matters, security, and coordination with the PA. Notably, the commissioner for humanitarian affairs would be tasked with liaising with humanitarian organizations, including the contentious Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which many Arab states and humanitarian groups believe should be dismantled.
A commissioner focused on PA coordination would ensure that the decisions made by Gita align with the PA’s objectives, facilitating the eventual unification of all Palestinian territories under the PA’s governance. This commissioner would also monitor PA reform efforts in collaboration with international donors and Arab partners involved in Palestinian institutional development.
Additionally, a separate Palestinian Executive Authority (PEA) would engage more directly with the Palestinian populace by providing services through a nonpartisan, professional administration. The PEA would be led by a CEO appointed by the Gita board and would manage various technocratic ministries, including health, education, finance, infrastructure, judicial affairs, and welfare.
The PEA would also receive reports from Gaza’s municipalities, which would be responsible for local service delivery, and would establish a civil police force composed of "nationally recruited, professionally vetted, and nonpartisan" officers to maintain public order and protect civilians. Furthermore, a judicial board, chaired by an Arab jurist, would oversee Gaza’s courts and public prosecution office, along with the aforementioned Property Rights Preservation Unit.
To alleviate concerns that the plan might lead to the displacement of thousands of Palestinians during reconstruction efforts, a Property Rights Preservation Unit would be created to ensure that any voluntary departures from Gaza do not infringe upon individuals’ rights to return or retain ownership of their properties.
In a recent address to the UN General Assembly, Mahmoud Abbas, the PA president, asserted that Hamas would not play a role in the governance of post-war Gaza, a crucial condition for both Israel and the U.S. However, it’s important to note that Abbas and the PA currently only govern the West Bank and do not have a direct role in negotiations regarding a ceasefire or post-war planning for Gaza. He emphasized that Gaza is an "integral part of the state of Palestine" and expressed readiness to assume full responsibility for governance and security there.
Abbas delivered his remarks via video link after the U.S. revoked his visa ahead of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly. Meanwhile, at the White House, Trump firmly rejected any notion that Israel could annex parts of the West Bank, stating emphatically, "I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. Nope. I won’t allow it. It’s not going to happen."
This situation raises many questions: Is Tony Blair the right choice to lead Gaza’s transitional authority? Can this plan truly pave the way for Palestinian statehood, or does it merely represent a new form of occupation? We invite you to share your thoughts and engage in this critical conversation.
