- January 18, 2026
- 7:43 pm
- World News
The White House has begun sending invitations to dozens of countries to join a new body that Donald Trump calls the “Council of Peace.” The letters mention a “new approach” to conflict resolution, with Gaza being the first topic of work — against the backdrop of attempts to move to the second, most difficult phase of agreements on ceasefire and management of the sector.
The very idea of a “parallel structure” immediately raised concerns among diplomats. In unofficial conversations, the same question is heard: is this an additional tool that helps where the UN is too slow, or an attempt to create a competitor to the United Nations and shift political legitimacy to a platform controlled by Washington.
What the project starts with and what it is intended to be tasked with
According to the initiators, the “Council of Peace” should start with Gaza issues. Key tasks include the political and administrative “reassembly” of sector management, international security support, the creation of a new Palestinian administrative structure, disarmament of Hamas, and the launch of a large-scale reconstruction program.
Importantly, this format is presented not as long multilateral diplomacy, but as a mechanism for “quick decisions”: regular meetings, working groups, targeted agreements that can be promptly secured by the political will of leaders.
Who is part of the “executive core” and why this became a separate signal
One of the reasons for increased attention is how the “executive contour” is formed. Discussions mention:
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio
Special envoy of the U.S. President Steve Witkoff
Jared Kushner (relative and closest associate of Trump)
Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair
Several other high-ranking figures from international institutions and business
The list of names is interpreted in two ways. On one hand, these are people with negotiation experience and influence. On the other — the participation of Trump’s close circle reinforces suspicions that the new structure will not be “supranational” in the classical sense and will remain a political tool of one center.
“Permanent seat” for a billion: the financial part that sounds like politics
The most controversial point is the financial model. The project discusses the idea: countries that want to obtain a “permanent seat” must contribute $1 billion. For others, a rotational membership principle is proposed for up to three years with the possibility of extension.
At the level of political psychology, this looks like an “entry ticket” into the international security architecture, where money turns into status. And it is this moment that causes internal discomfort for many governments: it is no longer just about helping Gaza and reconstruction, but about who and under what conditions gets the levers of influence.
Reaction of world capitals: from cautious “yes” to noticeable tension
The most openly positive signal, according to reports from diplomatic circles, was given by Hungary — Budapest declared its readiness to participate.
Other countries formulate responses cautiously. Where they say “we are ready to contribute,” they almost always add: there are no details, few legal frameworks, unclear powers, financial control mechanisms are undisclosed. This is a classic diplomatic formula when they do not want to slam the door but are not ready to sign up for the unknown.
Why the UN comes up again — and what does the European rhetoric “we will not be intimidated” have to do with it
For diplomats, the central concern is not that another “council” is emerging. The concern is that it may start taking over functions that previously went through the UN: mandates, monitoring, coordination of “peace formulas,” distribution of financial aid, the right to exclude a participant from the process.
Against this backdrop, the political stance “not to succumb to pressure” is strengthening in Europe — it is heard in various topics, from Ukraine to more exotic cases. In public statements by European leaders, the idea is increasingly heard: intimidation should not work either on Ukraine or on any other areas of international politics. This rhetoric is not only about specific crises — it’s about the rules of the game.
What this could mean for Gaza — and why many think beyond Gaza
Formally, the project starts with Gaza. But the structure itself is easily scalable: if it works, it can be applied to any conflict zone — from Ukraine to other “complex” regions where diplomacy is stalling.
There are two opposing scenarios:
Pragmatic. The new format accelerates decisions, helps raise funds for reconstruction, creates pressure on conflict parties, and provides quick security mechanisms.
Systemic risk. The new format becomes a club of influence, where status is bought, rules are changed according to the political will of the chairman, and international institutions lose meaning because key decisions go “bypassed.”
Conclusion: the idea is fast, but the price may be high
Many see the “Council of Peace” as an attempt by Trump to show effectiveness where traditional diplomacy seems endless. But it is precisely the speed and concentration of power that worries governments: if the new body really starts working as a competitor to the UN, the world may not get a more effective security system, but competition of institutions and a struggle for legitimacy.
Question to readers: if such a structure works — will it be a useful “accelerator of peace” or a dangerous precedent after which international rules will finally become a matter of the political will of the strongest?
And yes — you will have to watch closely: as soon as the official list of countries and final membership rules appear, it will become clear whether this is a project “on declarations” or a new reality of world politics. NAnews — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency will keep you informed because all this directly concerns both Israel and Ukraine, and how decisions about war and peace will be made in the future.
