Wars rarely end the day the guns fall silent. Some simply pause, catching their breath before history pushes them forward again.
Gaza is one such place.
When Donald Trump reportedly invited Narendra Modi to be part of a proposed Gaza Board of Peace, the news sounded abrupt, almost improbable. India, Gaza, Trump, post-war reconstruction: the pieces seemed mismatched. But history, when read patiently, tells a different story.
This invitation is not an impulse.
It is the consequence of 75 years of unresolved governance, broken promises, failed experiments, and exhausted models in one of the most tragic strips of land on earth.
To understand what Trump hopes to achieve, and why Modi’s presence matters, we must begin not with today’s ceasefire, but with Gaza’s long, lonely past.
I. Gaza: Born Without a State, Raised Without Stability
Gaza did not choose to become a symbol of suffering. History chose it.
For centuries, Gaza existed quietly on the margins, first under the Ottoman Empire, then under the British Mandate for Palestine. It was never meant to be a capital, never groomed to be a state, never prepared to govern itself. When empires collapsed and new borders were drawn, Gaza was left suspended, belonging fully to no one.
After the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Gaza came under Egyptian control. Yet Egypt never annexed it. Palestinians living there were not granted Egyptian citizenship, nor a Palestinian state of their own. Gaza became a holding pen for refugees, crowded, resentful, politically voiceless.
This was Gaza’s original wound. A population without sovereignty, without institutions, without a future roadmap. Nations are not built merely by borders. They are built by administration, ownership, and legitimacy. Gaza had none of the three.
II. Occupation and the Slow Boil of Resistance
The 1967 Six-Day War reshaped West Asia overnight. Israel captured Gaza from Egypt, and with that began a new chapter, military occupation.
Israel controlled Gaza’s borders, economy, and security. It did not integrate Gaza, nor did it allow Gaza to evolve into a state. For Palestinians, daily life became a reminder of powerlessness. For Israel, Gaza became a security liability without a political solution.
Over time, frustration hardened into resistance.
In 1987, during the First Intifada, Gaza erupted. And from within this ferment emerged Hamas, not as a conventional political party, but as a movement blending religion, resistance, and social welfare.
Hamas did not promise governance. It promised dignity through defiance.
This distinction matters. Movements born in resistance are rarely designed to govern. They are designed to fight.
III. Oslo’s Promise, and Gaza’s Exclusion
The Oslo Accords of the 1990s were meant to end this cycle. The world celebrated handshakes and hope. The Palestinian Authority was created. A future Palestinian state seemed possible.
But Gaza was never truly stabilised.
Oslo deferred the hardest questions, borders, security, sovereignty. Institutions remained weak. Corruption seeped in. Gaza stayed economically isolated and politically volatile.
Peace, for Gaza, remained theoretical.
This was not peace-building. It was peace-postponement.
IV. When Israel Left, and No One Took Charge
In 2005, Israel made a dramatic decision: it withdrew entirely from Gaza. Settlements dismantled. Troops pulled out. The world applauded.
The assumption was simple: End occupation, and stability will follow.
Reality proved far crueler.
In 2006, Hamas won Palestinian elections. A year later, after violent clashes with Fatah, Hamas seized complete control of Gaza. Israel and Egypt responded with a blockade. Gaza became a sealed enclave, governed by a militant organisation, cut off from the world.
Israel had left, but no credible civilian authority replaced it.
This moment is crucial. It marks the point where Gaza ceased to be merely occupied and became ungovernable.
V. The Endless Loop: War, Ceasefire, Aid, Ruins, Repeat
From 2008 onward, Gaza entered a tragic rhythm: War with Israel, Ceasefire brokered by outsiders, International aid pledges, Reconstruction, Hamas rearmament and Another war.
This happened again and again – 2009, 2012, 2014, 2021, and beyond.
Each time, donors rebuilt homes that would be destroyed again. Each time, civilians paid the price. Each time, no governing structure was installed to prevent recurrence.
The UN could deliver aid but not authority. The Palestinian Authority lacked legitimacy in Gaza. Israel could not reoccupy indefinitely. Arab states hesitated to take responsibility.
By 2024, Gaza stood as the world’s most expensive humanitarian failure.
VI. Trump’s Memory of Failed Wars
This is the history that shapes Trump’s thinking.
Trump is not a sentimentalist. His worldview was forged by watching America bleed in Iraq and Afghanistan, wars won militarily but lost politically. He distrusts nation-building sermons and UN committees. He believes peace is transactional, not ideological.
During his first term, Trump bypassed traditional diplomacy to engineer the Abraham Accords. He worked with states, not slogans. He avoided UN blueprints and chose selective partnerships.
For Trump, Gaza presents a familiar warning: If no one owns the aftermath, war returns.
The idea of a Gaza Board of Peace is his attempt to solve the one problem every intervention has avoided, who governs Gaza the day after the war.
VII. Why India – and Why Modi?
This is where history and strategy converge. India is an unusual candidate in West Asia, and that is precisely why it fits.
India:
Has no colonial baggage in the region
– Has never bombed, occupied, or regime-changed West Asian states
– Maintains strong ties with Israel
– Enjoys deep goodwill across the Arab world
– Has consistently supported Palestinian development without endorsing violence
– India’s strength lies not in force projection, but in institution-building.
From peacekeeping missions to development partnerships, India’s approach has been steady, quiet, and pragmatic. It builds roads, hospitals, administrations, not dependency.
For Trump, inviting Modi is about legitimacy.
A Gaza reconstruction led only by the U.S. and Israel would be rejected. A UN-led process would stall. A China-led initiative would alarm Washington.
India offers a fourth path: Global South credibility, without ideological strings.
VIII. What Trump Is Really Betting On
By bringing Modi into the picture, Trump is attempting several things at once.
First, he wants to break Gaza’s historical curse, ending the cycle where destruction is followed by rebuilding without governance.
Second, he wants to share responsibility without sharing blame. India’s presence signals that Gaza’s future is not being dictated by Western powers alone.
Third, he is quietly blocking China from becoming the principal architect of post-war Gaza, ensuring reconstruction remains transparent rather than debt-driven.
And finally, Trump wants to reshape his own legacy, from a leader associated with conflict, to one remembered for closing a war that others could not.
IX. A Test for India as Well
This invitation is not without risk for India.
Gaza is not a development project; it is a graveyard of failed intentions. Militancy, trauma, and distrust run deep. Any transitional authority will face resistance, from Hamas remnants, from sceptical civilians, from regional spoilers.
But it is also an opportunity.
If India succeeds, even partially, it will demonstrate that stability can be built without occupation, without ideology, without permanent foreign control.
It would mark India’s transition from a balancing power to a system-shaping one.
X. The Human Question at the Centre
At its core, this is not about Trump or Modi. It is about the people of Gaza,families who have rebuilt homes four times, children who have known only war, generations raised without the expectation of peace.
History has failed them repeatedly.
The invitation extended to Modi is, ultimately, an admission by the world: We do not know how to fix Gaza the way we have tried so far.
Trump’s gamble is that India, precisely because it is not part of Gaza’s painful history, might help write a different future.
XI. Learning from History, or Repeating It
Gaza’s tragedy has never been just about war.
It has been about what comes after war, and the consistent refusal to answer that question honestly.
Every model failed because it was imposed, outsourced, or abandoned.
The idea of a Gaza Board of Peace is an attempt, perhaps the last serious one, to learn from history rather than defy it.
Whether it succeeds remains uncertain. But the logic behind inviting Modi is rooted in a hard-earned lesson:
Peace is not made by those who fight wars, but by those who know how to build institutions when the fighting stops.
If Gaza is to finally step out of history’s shadow, it will require not saviours, but patient stabilisers.
That is the gamble Trump is making.
And that is the responsibility history has placed before India.
XII. What India Stands to Gain, and What It Risks Losing
For India, Gaza is not a distant headline.
It is a fork in the road.
Accepting a role in a Gaza Board of Peace would mark one of the most consequential foreign policy choices New Delhi has made since liberalisation—one that carries quiet rewards and serious risks, neither of which can be measured in headlines alone.
What India Stands to Gain
1. From “Rising Power” to “Responsible Power”
For decades, India has been described as a rising power. Gaza offers something rarer, the chance to be seen as a responsible stabilising power.
India already participates in global forums, peacekeeping missions, and humanitarian efforts. But Gaza is different. This would not be a UN deployment or a symbolic presence. It would be co-ownership of outcomes.
If India helps design even a partial governance transition, schools reopening, municipal services functioning, aid not diverted, it sends a powerful message:
India does not merely speak of global responsibility; it carries it.
That perception matters. In diplomacy, reputation compounds.
2. Strategic Trust Capital with the West, Without Subordination
By partnering in Gaza without deploying troops or dictating terms, India would earn something Washington values deeply: reliability without dependence.
For leaders like Donald Trump, this is gold. India would be seen not as an ally that needs persuasion, but as one that can be trusted to deliver stability without drama.
That trust translates quietly into:
– Greater leverage in technology transfers
– Strategic patience on trade and defence issues
– Stronger backing for India’s global ambitions
This is how power accumulates, not through applause, but through confidence.
3. Moral Credibility Across the Global South
India’s greatest diplomatic asset is not its economy or military, it is its credibility among post-colonial societies.
Gaza’s people do not trust Western powers. They do not trust institutions that arrive with lectures and leave with excuses. India, however, arrives without historical baggage.
If India helps restore basic dignity, water, healthcare, governance, it reinforces its image as: A country that understands suffering because it has lived through it.
This strengthens India’s voice across Africa, West Asia, and the developing world, where moral authority still matters.
4. Quiet Strategic Depth in West Asia
India’s energy security, diaspora interests, and trade routes are deeply tied to West Asia. Stability in Gaza is not abstract, it reduces regional volatility.
A constructive Indian role:
– Strengthens ties with Arab states without alienating Israel
– Positions India as a neutral convener in future regional crises
– Expands India’s diplomatic footprint without militarisation
This is influence without entanglement.
What India Stands to Lose
Yet Gaza is not a trophy, it is a warning.
1. Reputational Risk in a Graveyard of Good Intentions
Gaza has defeated empires, institutions, and peace plans.
If governance collapses again, if violence returns, if aid is misused, India risks being associated with failure, despite best intentions.
In diplomacy, proximity to failure can stain even the most cautious actor.
India’s greatest risk is not being blamed, but being disillusioned with.
2. Domestic Political Sensitivities
Gaza evokes strong emotions at home. Any Indian involvement would be scrutinised from all sides: Too close to Israel, and critics accuse betrayal of Palestine. Too sympathetic to Gaza, and others question strategic realism
Managing this balance requires political maturity and narrative clarity, something India possesses, but cannot take lightly.
Foreign policy does not exist in a vacuum; it echoes at home.
3. Being Drawn into an Endless Conflict Loop
India’s strength has always been strategic restraint. Gaza tests that restraint.
Even a non-military role can become consuming:
– Constant crises
– Regional spoilers
– Pressure to “do more”
India must guard against mission creep, the slow expansion of responsibility without authority.
The line between stabiliser and stakeholder is thin.
The Real Calculation: Why India May Still Say Yes
Despite the risks, India’s calculus is shaped by one hard truth:
The world will not wait for India to be ready, it will test India anyway.
If India declines, others will step in. The region will not pause. And India’s claim to global leadership would remain aspirational rather than demonstrated.
If India accepts, carefully, conditionally, pragmatically, it steps into history not as a power that conquered, but as one that repaired.
That distinction is rare.
Conclusion : The Weight of a Different Kind of Power
Gaza has known too many saviours and too few builders.
The invitation extended to Modi is not about fixing Gaza alone. It is about whether a civilisation-state like India is ready to shoulder a burden that empires once carried, and failed.
India stands to gain stature, trust, and moral authority. It stands to lose comfort, distance, and plausible deniability. History rarely offers choices without cost. The question before India is not whether Gaza will remain troubled.
It almost certainly will.
The question is whether India is ready to help write a less tragic chapter, knowing fully that perfection is impossible, but abandonment is worse.
That is the gamble.
And that is the moment.
