Trump’s Gaza ‘Board of Peace’: A Bold Plan or Another Dead End?

US peace plan for Gaza: Trump announces ‘board of peace’— what it means

In a high-stakes move that could reshape the future of one of the world’s most volatile regions, U.S. President Donald Trump has announced the creation of a Gaza Board of Peace—a central pillar of the second phase of his administration’s plan to end the war in Gaza and lay the groundwork for long-term stability . The announcement comes amid ongoing humanitarian crises, stalled ceasefire talks, and deep skepticism from regional and international actors.

But what exactly is this “Board of Peace”? Who will be on it? And more importantly—can it actually work? With major questions about Palestinian sovereignty, Israeli security, and international buy-in still unresolved, Trump’s proposal walks a razor-thin line between visionary diplomacy and political theater.

Table of Contents

What Is the Gaza Board of Peace?

According to the White House briefing, the Gaza Board of Peace is envisioned as an international oversight body tasked with supervising the transition of governance in post-conflict Gaza. It will not directly rule the territory but will monitor and guide a newly formed Palestinian technocratic committee responsible for day-to-day administration, reconstruction, and public services .

The board is expected to include representatives from the United States, key Arab states (potentially Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia), and possibly European allies. Notably absent—at least in initial reports—are direct representatives from Hamas or the Palestinian Authority (PA), raising immediate concerns about legitimacy and inclusivity.

The Two-Phase US Peace Plan for Gaza

Trump’s strategy unfolds in two distinct stages:

  1. Phase One: Focused on securing a durable ceasefire, facilitating humanitarian aid, and dismantling militant infrastructure (primarily Hamas’s military capabilities).
  2. Phase Two: Centered on governance, reconstruction, and long-term security—this is where the Gaza Board of Peace comes into play.

The administration argues that without a credible, non-partisan administrative structure, any ceasefire will be temporary. Hence, the push for a “technocratic” approach—bypassing traditional political factions in favor of engineers, doctors, economists, and civil administrators who can rebuild without ideological baggage.

Key Players and the Palestinian Technocratic Committee

The success of the plan hinges on the credibility of the Palestinian technocratic committee. Sources suggest it may include diaspora professionals, former World Bank advisors, and respected local figures with no ties to either Hamas or Fatah.

However, critics warn that sidelining both the PA and Hamas could backfire. The PA, though weakened, remains the internationally recognized government of the Palestinian territories. Excluding it risks creating a parallel authority with no grassroots support. As one analyst from the International Crisis Group noted, “Technocrats can fix sewers, but they can’t deliver political legitimacy” .

The International Stabilisation Force: Role and Challenges

Integral to Phase Two is the proposed International Stabilisation Force (ISF)—a multinational security contingent that would replace Israeli troops in Gaza after hostilities cease. This force would be responsible for maintaining order, preventing arms smuggling, and protecting civilians.

Yet major hurdles remain:

  • Troop Contributions: No country has publicly committed to sending soldiers. NATO members are hesitant; Arab states fear domestic backlash.
  • Mandate Clarity: Will the ISF have authority to disarm militias? Or just patrol streets?
  • Israeli Approval: Israel insists on retaining “overriding security control,” which could undermine the ISF’s independence.

Unresolved Issues and Regional Reactions

Despite the fanfare, core issues remain unaddressed:

  • The status of Palestinian refugees
  • The right of return
  • The future of Israeli settlements near Gaza
  • The role of Iran-backed groups in the region

Reactions have been mixed. Egypt and Jordan have expressed cautious interest but emphasize that any solution must align with the two-state framework. Meanwhile, Hamas dismissed the plan as “an American-Israeli conspiracy,” and the Palestinian Authority called it “premature and exclusionary” .

Historical Context: Why Past Plans Failed

This isn’t the first time technocratic governance has been proposed for Gaza. After Israel’s 2005 disengagement, similar ideas surfaced—but collapsed due to infighting, lack of funding, and the rise of Hamas. The 2014 “Unity Government” also failed within months.

What makes this different? The Trump administration is betting that overwhelming U.S. financial leverage—coupled with potential Saudi normalization deals—can force cooperation. But as history shows, technical solutions rarely succeed without political consensus.

For deeper insights into Middle East diplomacy, see our analysis on [INTERNAL_LINK:middle-east-peace-process-history].

Conclusion: Can the Gaza Board of Peace Deliver Peace?

The Gaza Board of Peace is a bold attempt to break the cycle of violence through pragmatic, non-ideological governance. In theory, it sidesteps the toxic politics that have paralyzed past efforts. In practice, it risks being seen as an imposed solution lacking Palestinian ownership.

Its success depends on three things: genuine regional buy-in, sufficient security guarantees, and—most critically—the willingness of ordinary Palestinians to trust a system built without their elected voices. Until then, the Board of Peace remains a well-intentioned blueprint, not a peace treaty.

Sources

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top