Why did India start raising questions on Trump’s offer for Gaza Peace Board? Know in detail

The claim that US President Donald Trump’s offer to India to join the Gaza Board of Peace (BoP) is an alarm bell is **largely correct** based on recent developments, although some details in the question are slightly inaccurate or exaggerated.

**The Board of Peace** is an original initiative proposed by Trump as part of his 20-point Gaza peace plan. Its purpose is to oversee post-war reconstruction, humanitarian assistance, infrastructure reconstruction and governance in Gaza following the Israel-Hamas war. Trump is its president indefinitely, and a signing ceremony is planned in Davos during the World Economic Forum on January 22, 2026. The board’s scope has expanded beyond Gaza to potentially address global conflicts, raising concerns that it could sideline or become a rival to the UN – Trump has suggested it could “perhaps” replace the UN.

Subscriptions and reactions
– Israel (through PM Netanyahu) has accepted a three-year renewable term.
– Other acceptors include Kosovo, UAE, Morocco, Egypt, Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Turkey, Greece, Belarus, Hungary and Vietnam (reports vary slightly on the exact lists).
– Rejection: France (Emmanuel Macron’s office raised concerns about undermining UN principles), Norway, Sweden and Denmark have declined.
– Not decided yet: India, Russia, China and others are reviewing the invitations; No final decision has been announced by New Delhi or Moscow.

Trump threatened to impose 200% tariffs on French wine and Champagne if Macron refused, which was forcefully described as a “threat” in media coverage. This reflects their previous transactional approach.

**Financial Aspects**: Initial or three-year membership is free, but permanent status requires a “voluntary” contribution of $1 billion (to fund Gaza reconstruction), which has been criticized as mixing diplomacy with pay-to-play politics.

**Red flags for India**: India’s balanced stance – supporting Palestinian rights and a two-state solution through UN resolutions, while strengthening defense/technical ties with Israel and ties with Arab states – makes it risky to get involved. The board lacks clear Palestinian representation, it operates outside the UN framework, Trump has centralized power (including discretion like veto), and it could trap India in US-centric geopolitics. Critics see this as weakening multilateralism, marginalizing established peace mechanisms, and prioritizing transactional contributions over consensus. The US, as Israel’s main supporter, contributed to the scale of the destruction in Gaza through military aid; Now the board is diverting reconstruction spending elsewhere, drawing comparisons to aid given to NATO/Ukraine, where the allies fund US weapons.

India’s dilemma remains: no decision has been taken yet, but participation could put pressure on its image with the Global South/UN and relations with Arab/Palestinian stakeholders.