White House Unveils Two‑Board Governance Structure The administration announced a two‑board system: a Gaza Executive Board to oversee the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza and a founding Executive Board focused on investment and diplomacy [1][2]. Yakir Gabay, an Israeli businessman, is the sole Israeli on the Executive Board, while no Palestinians sit on either senior board [1][2]. The U.S. named the first Executive Board members—Turkey’s foreign minister, a Qatari official, former UK prime minister Tony Blair, and Jared Kushner—without Israeli coordination [1].

Israel Objects, Cites Lack of Coordination Prime Minister Netanyahu convened senior advisers to discuss the plan after Israel learned it was excluded from the board’s lower‑body talks [1]. The Israeli government formally rejected the White House announcement, labeling it contrary to Israeli policy and directing the foreign ministry to contact Secretary of State Marco Rubio [2]. Far‑right ministers, including Itamar Ben‑Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, publicly backed Netanyahu and warned of possible military action, while Yair Lapid called the move a diplomatic failure [1][2].

Palestinian Committee Formed, Hamas Promises Withdrawal The U.S. draft also creates a Palestinian committee to manage Gaza’s daily affairs; the panel met for the first time in Cairo [2]. Hamas announced it would dissolve its governing body in Gaza once the Palestinian committee assumes authority, though it did not commit to dismantling its armed wing [2]. Palestinian Islamic Jihad criticized the executive committee’s composition as reflecting Israeli influence [2].

International Reactions Highlight Funding and Membership Questions Trump will chair the Board of Peace, inviting global leaders; Viktor Orban confirmed participation while the United Kingdom sought clarification [1]. Bloomberg reported Trump is seeking $1 billion in contributions from invited countries, and CBS cited a U.S. official suggesting three‑year membership could be offered without payment [1]. Israeli politicians view the funding drive and membership model as a diplomatic setback and a threat to Israel’s strategic interests [1].