The body, modeled on transitional administrations in Kosovo
and Timor-Leste, would initially be based in Egypt and later enter Gaza with a
supposedly UN-endorsed, largely Arab peacekeeping force.
According to the details, GITA would oversee a technocratic
Palestinian Executive Authority tasked with delivering services, running ministries
such as health and education, and supervising vetted civil police.
Hamas is explicitly excluded, while the Palestinian
Authority (PA) is promised an eventual role — but with no firm timetable.
By contrast, the UN General Assembly recently backed the
“New York Declaration,” a plan for a one-year interim administration that would
then hand power to a reformed PA following elections.
Arab
states have warned that their support for any peacekeeping force depends on a
credible political horizon toward Palestinian statehood. Many fear that the
Blair plan offers only a more palatable form of occupation, granting Israel
reassurances while denying Palestinians genuine sovereignty.
Blair’s involvement is especially controversial. While he
enjoys ties with Arab leaders from the Persian Gulf, Palestinians broadly
resent his record as Middle East envoy and his role in the US-led invasion of
Iraq. To many, his leadership would symbolize not liberation but a continuation
of externally imposed control.
The plan comes against the backdrop of Washington’s earlier
floated ideas — including transforming Gaza into a “Riviera” or even
facilitating mass removal of Palestinians — rhetoric widely condemned as edging
toward ethnic cleansing.
Though the details from the Blair proposal do not explicitly
call for displacement, critics warn that without guarantees of rights,
participation, and a binding timeline, Gaza risks foreign control and loss of
sovereignty.
