Tony Blair Is Seeking a Senior Role in Postwar Gaza

US officials authorize Tony Blair to rally support for a “Gaza International Transitional Authority” (GITA) to govern the Strip in a multi-year interim period. Draft plan foresees an internationally backed stabilization force, a technocratic Palestinian Executive Authority, and a “Property Rights Preservation Unit,” with no forced displacement.

The White House is backing a proposal for Tony Blair to steer a UN-mandated transitional administration in Gaza, initially based outside the Strip and later deploying alongside a largely Arab multinational force. The draft, which has evolved into a war-ending framework tied to a ceasefire and hostage release, sets up GITA as Gaza’s “supreme political and legal authority” for several years before handing over to a reformed Palestinian Authority (PA). 

What’s in the Blair proposal

GITA would be created by UN Security Council resolution and empowered to issue binding decisions during the transition. Its 7–10-member board would include a senior UN official, international figures with executive/financial experience, and “strong representation of Muslim members,” with at least one qualified Palestinian representative. The chair—selected by international consensus—would lead diplomacy and coordination with the PA, supported by a secretariat of up to 25 staff. 

Below the board, an executive secretariat would oversee five commissioners for humanitarian affairs, reconstruction, legislation/legal affairs, security, and PA coordination. A separate Palestinian Executive Authority (PEA) of non-partisan technocrats would run ministries (health, education, finance, infrastructure, judicial affairs, and welfare), municipalities, nationally recruited civil police, courts under an Arab jurist, and a Property Rights Preservation Unit to guard ownership/return in any voluntary movements.

To prevent any armed group’s resurgence, an International Stabilization Force would protect operations, secure borders, and conduct “targeted operations” against smuggling and asymmetric threats—supporting, not substituting for, local law enforcement. Estimated institutional costs rise from $90m in year one to $164m in year three, excluding the force and humanitarian aid.

How it fits with US diplomacy

US President Donald Trump authorized Blair to rally regional and international stakeholders around the plan. People briefed on the discussions say Washington wants Blair involved—potentially as GITA chair—after he and Jared Kushner attended an August White House session on Gaza’s day after.

Trump’s ceasefire concept includes releasing remaining hostages together, IDF redeployment to earlier positions and full withdrawal once the stabilization force is in place, and a pledge of “no forced displacement.”

“I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank,” he told reporters after speaking with regional leaders. 

Regional reception and open questions

European and Arab states have pushed for Palestinian technocrats endorsed by the PA and warn an international trusteeship could lack legitimacy in Gaza. Arab capitals say contributions to any UN-mandated force require a clear, irreversible path to Palestinian statehood; some see the Blair blueprint as too open-ended.

Ramallah has “engaged constructively” under Gulf pressure, though the plan initially limits PA authority to coordination while tying eventual unification of Palestinian territories under the PA to reforms. In contrast, the UN General Assembly’s recent New York Declaration envisioned a one-year technocratic interim before transfer to a reformed PA via elections—a faster timeline than the White House-backed track.

Israel’s stance remains pivotal. While Israeli engagement with Blair’s team is described as “constructive,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly opposed PA roles and vowed to destroy Hamas. His response when meeting Trump in Washington is widely viewed as a test of US resolve to press for an end to the campaign.

Displacement fears and the “Riviera” debate

Sources involved in Blair’s drafting emphasize, “Gaza is for Gazans,” and the plan rejects displacement schemes. The Property Rights Preservation Unit is intended to ensure any voluntary departures do not compromise ownership or return rights—an answer to prior debates over “Gaza Riviera” concepts.

The so-called “Riviera plan” debates refer to earlier proposals—circulated in Israeli and US policy circles before and during the Gaza war—that suggested resettling Gazans outside the Strip and turning parts of Gaza’s coastline into a kind of Mediterranean “Riviera” development zone.

• Concept: Gaza’s population would be pressured to relocate abroad—with talk of new communities in Egypt’s Sinai, elsewhere in the region, or beyond—while the Strip’s seafront would be redeveloped for tourism and investment.
• Criticism: Palestinians, Arab governments, and international diplomats condemned the idea as forced displacement or a cover for ethnic cleansing, warning it would strip Gazans of their land and rights.
• Blair plan’s response: In drafting the US-backed Gaza International Transitional Authority (GITA) blueprint, Blair’s team included a Property Rights Preservation Unit and repeatedly stressed that “Gaza is for Gazans,” explicitly rejecting the Riviera-style relocation concepts.

In short, the Riviera plan became shorthand for fears of depopulation and dispossession, and its rejection has become a key feature in current diplomacy to reassure Arab partners and Palestinians that any international administration will not pave the way for displacement.

The timeline: days, not months?

The latest Israeli strike in Doha has sharpened one of the main challenges Tony Blair faces in trying to sell his Gaza transition plan: convincing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to embrace a framework that seeks to sideline Hamas without military escalation. Netanyahu insisted the strike was aimed at warning Hamas leaders, including those tied to hostage talks, that Israel will “settle scores with all of them.” By contrast, Blair’s draft explicitly advocates the internationally recognized process of “disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration” (DDR), coupled with the creation of the UN-mandated Gaza International Transitional Authority (GITA), as a pathway to replace Hamas’s rule.

Yet the UK’s former prime minister also faces an uphill diplomatic climb in the Arab world. An Arab diplomat told reporters that Riyadh and other regional powers are conditioning financial and military contributions on the plan guaranteeing an “irreversible pathway” to Palestinian statehood — a prospect Netanyahu and his far-right coalition have consistently opposed.

Despite these obstacles, those involved in the discussions say Blair has made headway with some regional actors and is pressing ahead urgently. “We don’t have months or weeks. We have days,” a source close to the talks warned, underscoring the compressed timetable Washington and its allies see for ending the conflict and preventing Gaza from descending into deeper chaos.

The White House has thrown its weight behind a Tony Blair–devised plan to install a UN-mandated, internationally supervised transitional authority in Gaza, tying the blueprint to a ceasefire and comprehensive hostage deal while charting a phased path—anchored in PA reforms—toward eventual Palestinian governance. 

What to watch next

• The Netanyahu–Trump meeting in Washington for signals on Israeli acceptance of PA coordination and a stabilization force. 
• Arab conditions on a clear statehood timeline in exchange for funding and troop contributions. 
• UN track vs White House plan reconciliation efforts reportedly pushed by France.

Ultimately, Blair’s blueprint has emerged as the most detailed “day-after” plan yet, but it faces daunting political roadblocks. Washington is pressing for rapid agreement, Blair is warning of a narrowing window, and Arab capitals are tying support to an irreversible path toward statehood. Yet Netanyahu’s government remains openly hostile to PA involvement, while skepticism over an international trusteeship lingers. The coming days will reveal whether this ambitious framework can gain the regional and international consensus needed to halt the war and lay the groundwork for Gaza’s political future — or join a long list of peace proposals left on the shelf.