Arab-rooted plan must replace Trump’s Board of Peace

Almost each of Trump’s forays into ruthless foreign policy demonstrates how catastrophic his choices can be.

The “Board of Peace,” announced with fanfare, was truncated even before its first meeting. When Trump launched the initiative, ostensibly to oversee Gaza’s post-war reconstruction and potentially address other global conflicts, it immediately faced scepticism. While over 20 countries were initially reported as signatories—including several Middle Eastern nations (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, UAE)—many traditional U.S. allies in Europe showed caution, with some declining to join.

Its leadership was thin in both content and capacity. It would require extraordinary imprudence to entrust a team consisting of Jared Kushner, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair with founding responsibilities. An objective selection process would likely have found them politically patronised and lacking the necessary skills to oversee reconstruction of devastation on such an unprecedented scale. Worse still, they were themselves implicated in policy-making and influence connected to the very catastrophe they now propose to remedy.

Each brought political or business ambitions of their own. Kushner was widely seen as the “Riviera” architect. Witkoff and Rubio were positioned for political manoeuvring. Blair’s name remains linked to corruption allegations and the Iraq War. Self-interest hovered over the initiative.

Trump formally ratified the Board of Peace as an international organization on February 8, 2026, appointing himself chair with veto powers. It was scheduled to meet at the “Donald J. Trump U.S. Institute of Peace” in Washington on February 19, 2026. Yet the challenges it faces may render it self-extinguishing. It has no clear mandate and encroaches upon responsibilities traditionally assigned to the United Nations. The proposed headquarters is itself embroiled in a legal battle after the administration reportedly seized the facility and dismissed staff.

Critics, including Human Rights Watch, have questioned the structure of the board, with some describing it as a “pay-to-play” initiative in which permanent members are expected to contribute $1 billion.

The initiative has already faced setbacks in attempts to solidify a ceasefire. Some analysts remain unconvinced that it poses a long-term threat to the UN framework, suggesting it may merely offer participating nations a foothold in Gaza-related discussions.

Critics describe the Board of Peace as a top-down, foreign-led initiative that lacks Palestinian representation at its highest decision-making levels, raising serious concerns about legitimacy and effectiveness. The board, proposed by Donald Trump to manage Gaza’s post-conflict reconstruction and security, is seen by many as prioritizing foreign interests—particularly Israeli security objectives—over immediate Palestinian needs. Its development vision, centred on rapid economic transformation and high-rise construction, appears detached from political realities.

The board’s upper tier is composed entirely of foreigners, with no Palestinians in leadership roles. Critics argue this resembles colonial or neocolonial governance. Stability, as defined by the board, appears focused on territorial control rather than urgent humanitarian relief or genuine self-determination for Palestinians. It remains a foreign-led and non-representative body.

Although not in “ICU” in a literal sense, the Board of Peace faces profound international scepticism, along with structural and legal challenges from its inception. Critics characterize it as a “control architecture” prioritizing economic redevelopment—potentially facilitating Israeli land control—rather than addressing the core political conflict or urgent humanitarian needs. Although initially linked to a Gaza ceasefire, its charter notably omits any specific mention of Gaza, suggesting a broader global mandate.

Originally conceived as a mechanism for managing Gaza’s post-war reconstruction following the 2025 ceasefire, the board has expanded its scope into a global conflict-resolution body. The formal charter, signed in Davos on January 22, 2026, removed references to Gaza and authorized the body to address stability in regions “affected or threatened by conflict” worldwide. Power is heavily concentrated in the chair, including authority to appoint members. It has been criticized as a potential alternative to the UN framework.

While several Middle Eastern and some Asian nations joined, major European and Asian actors—including France, the UK, and Japan—have remained uncommitted, citing concerns about the board’s ambiguous mandate and its potential to undermine established international law. The Board of Peace has thus evolved from a Gaza-focused entity into a broader voluntary international organization.

Hamas has rejected the U.S.-backed Board of Peace (BoP) and its accompanying International Stabilization Force (ISF), authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 2803 in November 2025. Hamas views the plan—aimed at overseeing governance and disarming factions—as an “international guardianship” and a dangerous imposition that would perpetuate conflict. It has condemned the inclusion of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the U.S.-led board as a troubling signal.

The ISF is proposed as a UN-mandated multinational force to secure and demilitarize Gaza, replace Hamas security control, train a new Palestinian police force, protect civilians, and oversee humanitarian aid. Its mandate includes dismantling militant infrastructure and securing borders under strategic guidance from the Board of Peace. However, it has struggled to secure firm commitments from contributing nations. Some countries, such as Turkey, have suggested prioritizing separation of Israeli forces from Hamas rather than immediate disarmament.

Hamas rejects disarmament under foreign supervision, arguing that stability requires ending occupation rather than imposing external governance. It contends that replacing Israeli control with an international force merely substitutes one form of dominance for another. Senior Hamas official Osama Hamdan stated that no Palestinian would accept a committee headed by Donald Trump with figures such as Tony Blair involved. While Hamas has engaged in limited negotiations on ceasefires and hostage exchanges, it continues to oppose the broader governance and security architecture of the plan.

In response, the Arab League has focused on countering the Board of Peace by advancing an independent Arab-led alternative. Working with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), it has promoted a comprehensive reconstruction framework.

Promoting the Arab Reconstruction Plan

• Supporting a Cairo-hosted pledging conference to establish an Arab-led Gaza reconstruction fund.
• Rejecting a “tabula rasa” reconstruction aligned with external control, instead advocating sustainable local recovery initiatives.
• Championing the creation of a Palestinian technocratic committee to manage day-to-day governance in Gaza rather than an externally imposed authority.

Diplomatic Pressure for a Two-State Solution

• Reaffirming the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative based on land-for-peace principles.
• Advocating recognition of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders.
• Working toward full UN membership for Palestine.

Condemning and Limiting the Board of Peace

• Characterizing the BoP as an instrument that could entrench long-term foreign security presence.
• Encouraging member states to resist joining or funding it.
• Insisting that any international presence in Gaza operate under UN authority.

Seeking Accountability

The Arab League has also called for punitive measures against Israel, including:

• Suspension of Israel’s UN membership.
• An arms embargo.
• Coordinated diplomatic efforts at the Security Council to lift the blockade and halt operations in Gaza.

The Arab League’s reconstruction plan is presented as an indigenous effort to prevent displacement, halt what it describes as ethnic cleansing, and establish a technocratic Palestinian governance structure capable of restoring stability. Amid immense devastation, proponents argue that only a Palestinian-led vision can ensure sustainable reconstruction, economic revival, and the protection of residents’ rights.

Dr. Ranjan Solomon has worked in social justice movements since he was 19 years of age. After an accumulated period of 58 years working with oppressed and marginalized groups locally, nationally, and internationally, he has now turned a researcher-freelance writer focussed on questions of global and local/national justice. Since the First Intifada in 1987, Ranjan Solomon has stayed in close solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for freedom from Israeli occupation, and the cruel apartheid system. He has initiated solidarity groups in India, Afro-Asia-Pacific alliance, and at the global level. Ranjan Solomon can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com