Why Trump’s Offer To India To Join Gaza Board Of Peace Raises Red Flags – Explained | India News

US President Donald Trump is preparing to preside over the signing of the Gaza Peace Board in Davos. While many countries have accepted Trump’s invitation to join the board, some have not yet decided. France’s rejection of the offer irritated Trump, who threatened to impose 200% tariffs on French wine and champagne over his refusal to join the proposed ‘Peace Board’. This is a display of pure bullying by Trump, who wants to convey the message to the guests that they should be prepared to face coercive action if they reject the offer.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he accepted US President Trump’s invitation to become a member of the Peace Board. Other countries that accepted the invitation include Kosovo, which is not recognized by half the world; Pakistan, Türkiye, Greece, Belarus, Egypt, UAE, Morocco and others.

While countries such as France and Norway have rejected the proposal, Russia and India are among the countries that have not yet announced their decisions and are reviewing the proposal.

Notably, countries invited to Trump’s ‘Peace Board’ do not need to pay any fees initially or for the standard three-year membership period. However, to obtain a permanent seat (rather than an interim three-year period), a country must contribute at least $1 billion in cash funds to the Board within the first year of the agreement’s entry into force. This contribution is described as voluntary in official statements, but it is the threshold for permanent status, as the funds reportedly go to Gaza reconstruction efforts.

What is the Gaza Peace Board?

The proposed Gaza Peace Board is projected as a multilateral platform aiming to oversee post-war reconstruction and political stability in Gaza. According to available information, the board will bring together selected countries to coordinate post-conflict financing, humanitarian aid, infrastructure reconstruction and management support.

However, some aspects of the initiative remain unclear and controversial. There is no clarity on its legal status (whether it will operate within the framework of the UN or bypass it). The decision-making process is centralized, with the president having broad discretion over membership and the agenda. Critics argue that the board lacks representation from the Palestinian leadership and civil society, raising questions about legitimacy. Unlike traditional international organizations, permanent membership reportedly requires large financial contributions, blurring the lines between diplomacy and transactional politics.

Experts warn that such a structure could weaken established international institutions such as the United Nations and marginalize existing peace mechanisms. Instead of consensus-based diplomacy, the board risks turning into a power-centered club shaped by geopolitical interests rather than humanitarian priorities.

A NATO Reminder

So who financed the destruction of Gaza? After the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, it was the United States. The United States, Israel’s largest military supporter, indirectly facilitated the extent of destruction. Now Trump is asking others to pay to rebuild the city. This is similar to Trump’s NATO move against Ukraine. Remember, after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the United States became the largest donor of direct military aid to Kiev, providing weapons, ammunition, air defense systems and training. However, this approach changed in 2025 with the administration of President Donald Trump. Rather than directly sending large amounts of U.S.-financed equipment, Washington has turned to a structure in which European and other NATO allies would finance the purchase of U.S. weapons, which would then go to Ukraine; this enabled the allies to pay for most of the war supplies that had previously come from US stockpiles at no direct cost to them. Washington began to pressure NATO allies to shoulder more of the financial burden, instead of bilateral US donations.

India’s Dilemma

India’s stance on Gaza has always walked a delicate diplomatic tightrope. Historically, India has supported the Palestinian cause while advocating a two-state solution. India supported UN resolutions calling for a ceasefire and humanitarian aid in Gaza. At the same time, India has developed strong strategic and defense ties with Israel, deepening cooperation in technology, security and trade. India has also maintained growing relations with Arab countries and the Global South.

India’s voting pattern at the United Nations also reflects this balance; New Delhi generally avoids highly polarizing decisions and refrains from openly condemning Israel while supporting peace in Palestine.

Joining or rejecting the Gaza Peace Council puts India in a diplomatic deadlock:

If India joins:
• Risks alienating Arab partners
• He is subject to criticism within the country for being aligned with Western power blocs
• Seems to be bowing to Trump’s bullying

If India refuses:
• It may strain relations with the USA
• Don’t miss the opportunity to influence policies surrounding Gaza and the Middle East
• Risk of exclusion in global decision-making processes

For New Delhi, the choice is strategic, not ideological; how to protect national interests without losing moral credibility.

Cloud Surrounding Peace Board

The Gaza Peace Board may be presented as a humanitarian initiative, but its structure, leadership model, and financial watchdog raise serious questions about intent and credibility. Peacebuilding cannot be reduced to elite boardrooms or financial thresholds; Inclusive dialogue requires local representation and international legitimacy.

For India, the decision is particularly complex. His diplomatic legacy, Global South leadership and balanced foreign policy require a carefully calibrated response. New Delhi must weigh whether participating in such a forum truly serves peace or merely legitimizes a power-driven narrative.

After all, true peace cannot be bought, presided over or dictated. It must be negotiated, respected and owned by those most affected by the conflict. Any attempt to sideline them, no matter how big the name, risks becoming just another diplomatic stunt rather than a real step towards justice.