The first meeting of US President Donald Trump’s newly formed Board of Peace is scheduled to take place in Washington on Thursday, marking an early and critical test for one of his most ambitious foreign policy initiatives. Conceived as a new international platform for conflict resolution, the board aims not only to stabilise Gaza after the ongoing war but also to reshape how global conflicts are managed, potentially challenging the traditional role played by institutions such as the United Nations Security Council. However, expectations remain cautious as continued violence on the ground and slow progress in implementing the Gaza ceasefire threaten to undermine the initiative before it gains credibility.
Trump has presented the Board of Peace as a transformative diplomatic mechanism capable of guiding Gaza’s reconstruction and governance while creating a new model for international cooperation in conflict zones. His broader vision includes rebuilding Gaza into a modern, economically vibrant territory supported by international investment. Yet these ambitions face immediate obstacles. Despite a ceasefire that has reduced large-scale fighting and enabled humanitarian aid deliveries, civilians continue to be killed in near-daily strikes, Hamas has not disarmed, and a proposed Palestinian transitional authority has yet to assume control. Analysts warn that without rapid and visible improvements, especially in humanitarian conditions, confidence in the board could quickly erode.
More than two dozen countries have joined as founding members, including Israel and several regional stakeholders involved in ceasefire negotiations. However, the composition of the group has generated controversy. Some European allies, including France, Norway and Sweden, have declined participation, while Israel has expressed concerns about the inclusion of Qatar and Turkey due to their ties with Hamas. Palestinians, meanwhile, have criticised the initiative because no Palestinian representatives were invited to participate in discussions about Gaza’s future governance, despite the territory being home to nearly two million people.
Trump, who has positioned himself as chairman of the board, has claimed that participating countries have pledged billions of dollars toward Gaza’s reconstruction and may contribute personnel for peacekeeping and policing roles, although detailed financial commitments and a formal agenda have not been publicly released. Reconstruction proposals promoted by Trump’s advisers envision large-scale redevelopment projects, including tourism zones, industrial areas and digital infrastructure. These plans, however, depend heavily on security guarantees and demilitarisation — conditions that remain unresolved.
Progress on the ceasefire framework itself has been uneven. While hostage releases and increased aid deliveries have taken place, key provisions such as Hamas’ disarmament, Israel’s military withdrawal and the deployment of international stabilisation forces remain stalled. Israel insists reconstruction cannot begin until Hamas fully disarms, demanding the surrender of tens of thousands of weapons. Hamas, on the other hand, has offered only conditional commitments, arguing that some arms are necessary to maintain internal order during any political transition. Proposals under discussion include placing weapons in monitored storage or surrendering heavy arms while retaining limited policing capabilities, but agreement on these ideas appears distant.
Another major component of the ceasefire plan is the creation of a temporary International Stabilization Force composed largely of troops from Arab and Muslim-majority countries. The force would help secure aid distribution and support the formation of a new Palestinian police structure. However, potential contributors have made clear they do not want to participate directly in disarming Hamas, fearing that such a role could draw them into active conflict. Questions also remain about command authority, operational mandates and long-term security arrangements.
Governance of Gaza after the conflict represents an additional unresolved challenge. Under current proposals, Hamas would transfer administrative control to an interim committee of politically independent Palestinian figures overseen by an international envoy. Yet the committee has not been allowed to enter Gaza, and ongoing ceasefire violations continue to delay implementation. Diplomats involved in the process warn that without rapid political movement, the governance transition risks becoming symbolic rather than functional.
As the Board of Peace convenes for the first time, it faces a stark contrast between sweeping geopolitical ambitions and the complex realities on the ground. Continued fighting, unresolved political disputes and competing regional priorities mean that the success of the initiative will likely depend less on long-term visions and more on whether it can deliver immediate, measurable stability and humanitarian relief in Gaza.
