For decades, announcements about Gaza have followed a familiar script: urgent statements, lofty promises, international conferences, and then—eventually—disappointment. Plans were announced, committees formed, and resolutions passed, yet nothing on the ground meaningfully changed. Governance collapsed, reconstruction stalled, and instability hardened into permanence.
That’s the context in which yesterday’s announcement from Donald J. Trump landed—and why it deserves closer attention than it’s likely to get in the usual political shouting match.
The formation of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) marks Phase Two of President Trump’s Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict, a 20-point roadmap aimed not at symbolic peace but at functional governance. Whether one supports Trump or not, this plan departs sharply from the abstract diplomacy that has dominated the region for years.
At the center of the NCAG is Dr. Ali Sha’ath, a technocratic administrator with experience in public administration, economic development, and international coordination. His mandate is not rhetorical—it’s practical. Restore basic services. Rebuild civil institutions. Stabilize daily life. Lay the groundwork for a self-sustaining governing structure capable of surviving once the world’s attention inevitably shifts elsewhere.
This approach aligns directly with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803 (2025), which formally endorsed Trump’s Comprehensive Plan and authorized the creation of the Board of Peace. That endorsement matters. It provides international legitimacy and, more importantly, a framework for accountability—something Gaza has long lacked.
The Board of Peace, chaired by Trump himself, is not a symbolic advisory group. It is structured with defined portfolios and operational authority. Its founding Executive Board includes figures such as Marco Rubio, Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Tony Blair, Marc Rowan, Ajay Banga, and Robert Gabriel. Each is assigned responsibility across governance capacity-building, regional relations, reconstruction, investment, and capital mobilization.
This is a critical distinction. Previous international efforts often failed because responsibility was diffuse. Everyone was involved, but no one was accountable. This model names who owns which problem—and who answers if it isn’t solved.
To keep the machinery moving, Aryeh Lightstone and Josh Gruenbaum have been appointed as senior advisors responsible for day-to-day strategy and execution. Meanwhile, veteran diplomat Nickolay Mladenov will serve as High Representative for Gaza, acting as the on-the-ground bridge between the Board of Peace and the NCAG. His role is coordination—ensuring that civilian governance, reconstruction, and security efforts don’t operate in isolation.
Security, often the fatal weak point of past peace efforts, is addressed directly. Major General Jasper Jeffers has been appointed Commander of the International Stabilization Force (ISF), tasked with maintaining order, overseeing demilitarization, and enabling humanitarian and reconstruction access. Without security, no amount of development funding matters. This plan acknowledges that reality rather than wishing it away.
A Gaza Executive Board is also being established to support governance and service delivery, drawing members from across diplomatic, regional, and economic spheres. Its composition reflects a deliberate attempt to balance international oversight with regional involvement—another area where prior efforts frequently fell short.
The United States has reaffirmed its commitment to this transitional framework, working in coordination with Israel, key Arab nations, and international partners. Trump has called on all parties to cooperate fully with the NCAG, the Board of Peace, and the ISF to ensure rapid implementation.
Skepticism is understandable. Gaza has seen more failed plans than most places on Earth. But dismissing this effort outright would ignore what makes it different: defined authority, named leadership, international backing, security integration, and a focus on governance rather than slogans.
This may not succeed. No serious observer should pretend success is guaranteed. But unlike past initiatives, this plan appears built to operate in the real world—where institutions matter, accountability matters, and stability doesn’t emerge from declarations alone.
Additional appointments are expected in the coming weeks. Whether this effort marks a turning point or becomes another footnote will depend less on headlines and more on execution. For the first time in a long while, execution seems to be the point.