WASHINGTON – Donald Trump will convene the inaugural meeting of his “Board of Peace” in Washington on February 19, a gathering intended to chart a course for Gaza’s future but already shadowed by questions of authority, inclusivity, and the practicalities of implementation. The meeting, bringing together heads of state from the 27 nations that have signed the U.S.-drafted charter, comes as the ceasefire reached in October 2025 enters a critical second phase.
The Board’s mandate, endorsed by the UN Security Council, grants it broad powers over security and governance in Gaza, though the extent of that authority remains contested. Trump, as chair, wields significant influence, possessing the sole power to invite members, veto decisions, and modify the Board’s structure. This concentration of power has raised concerns among some member states and observers about the potential for the Board to turn into a vehicle for U.S. Foreign policy objectives rather than an impartial arbiter.
The first phase of the peace plan, announced by the U.S. In January, focused on establishing a ceasefire, increasing humanitarian aid, securing the release of hostages and Palestinian prisoners, and returning the remains of those killed. While the ceasefire has brought a measure of relief to Gaza, the situation remains dire. According to reports, Israeli strikes on population centers – largely reduced to tent cities – have continued at a rate of five deaths per day since October 10, 2025, resulting in over 590 fatalities. Israel continues to occupy most of the Gaza Strip, restricting the entry of goods and maintaining a significant military presence.
The Board’s structure is complex, featuring a governing layer of heads of state, an executive board dominated by U.S. Representatives, a multinational Gaza executive board, and a Palestinian technical committee responsible for administering Gaza. Responsibilities are not clearly delineated, and the role of an envisioned international stabilization force remains uncertain, with questions lingering about troop contributions and mandates.
Beyond Gaza, the Trump administration has signaled ambitions for the Board to address conflicts globally, a move that has met with skepticism from some quarters. While the administration has stopped short of suggesting the Board would supplant the UN Security Council, it has hinted at a potential expansion of its role into broader peacemaking efforts. This ambition has been met with resistance, as evidenced by the absence of Russia and China among the Board’s signatories.
Eight key majority-Muslim countries that signed the initiative issued a joint statement on February 1, criticizing Israel for ceasefire violations and reaffirming their commitment to a “just and lasting peace grounded in the Palestinian right to self-determination and statehood.” This statement underscores a potential point of leverage, as these nations could assess the Board’s success based on its progress in advancing phase two of the peace plan.
A central challenge facing the Board is the issue of Hamas’s disarmament. While Hamas has released all Israelis it was holding captive, it continues to maintain a significant arsenal of weapons. Israel insists on some form of disarmament as a precondition for any lasting peace, while Hamas maintains that it will not relinquish its arms as long as Israel occupies Palestinian land. Potential compromises, such as placing weapons “beyond use” or focusing initially on heavy weaponry, have been discussed privately, but a breakthrough remains elusive.
The composition of the Board has also drawn criticism, particularly the absence of Palestinian representation in the top three tiers of governance. All Palestinian representatives have been relegated to the technical committee, raising concerns about the Board’s inclusivity and its ability to effectively address the needs and concerns of the Gazan population. The inclusion of individuals with close ties to Israel, including indicted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has fueled skepticism among Palestinians and their supporters.
Netanyahu is scheduled to visit Washington to discuss Gaza and Iran, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, adding another layer of complexity to the already fraught situation. Israel has expressed unease about the Board’s membership, particularly the inclusion of Qatar and Türkiye, which host exiled Hamas leaders. The opening of the Rafah border crossing, a move advocated by the U.S., has also been met with resistance from Israel, which has imposed strict limitations on the number of people allowed to cross.
The success of the Board of Peace hinges on the ability of its members to navigate these complex political dynamics and forge a path toward a sustainable peace in Gaza. The task is daunting, but the stakes are high, with the future of two million Palestinians hanging in the balance.
