Can the BoP deliver real peace in Gaza?

2026-01-26 - 00:44

The Board of Peace (BoP), proposed by President Trump, was envisaged as the principal mechanism to oversee and supervise the implementation of the 20-point Gaza Peace Plan signed on October 9, 2025. The plan was subsequently endorsed by the UN Security Council, raising expectations that a credible international frame-work had finally emerged to halt the cycle of violence in Gaza. However, develop-ments on the ground since then have cast serious doubts on both the efficacy and credibility of this initiative. Despite the so-called peace plan, Israel has continued its military aggression in Gaza, killing more than 500 Palestinians since October 2025 alone and wounding thousands. President Trump may have shown an interest in de-escalation, yet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears determined to pursue a policy of ethnic cleansing; first in Gaza and later in the West Bank. This re-ality raises a fundamental question: how can a Trump-led Board of Peace (BoP) guarantee peace in Gaza when Israel continues to violate the very framework it claims to support? The credibility of the BoP is further undermined by the fact that public pressure and warnings have been directed almost exclusively at Hamas and the Palestinians, while Israel’s repeated violations of ceasefire norms have not been met with comparable international censure. This selective approach seriously weak-ens the moral authority of the initiative and places its future durability in question. The composition and political backing of the BoP also deserve scrutiny. Many participants at Davos expressed reservations about the BoP’s capacity to suc-ceed without a clear strategy and firm political commitment from US and Israel. A critical question also emerged: should the UN not have taken the lead, rather than allowing a single world leader to chair such a body? The personal leadership of Trump, while symbolically powerful, risks sidelining the UN and weakening multilat-eralism, thereby setting a dangerous precedent in global conflict resolution. Ironi-cally, although the BoP is widely perceived as a Gaza-focused mechanism, but does not mention it, rather speaks vaguely of promoting stability, restoring lawful govern-ance and securing enduring peace in conflict-prone areas. Structurally, the BoP has three layers: the Board itself, an executive board and a chairman with sweeping au-thority, President Trump. While member states vote on budgets and senior appoint-ments, the Executive Board of seven members is responsible for operational deci-sions. Prominent figures include former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. The absence of any Palestinian representation in this structure is particularly striking. Moreover, Trump, as Chairman, retains final authority on the interpretation of the charter and holds veto power over key decisions, including Executive Board actions and even membership removal. Such centralized authority raises concerns about neutrality and impartiality. Given the historical alignment of US policy with Israeli in-terests, critics fear that the BoP could ultimately serve a Zionist agenda rather than a genuinely balanced peace process. While the BoP is mandated to oversee a transi-tional Palestinian technocratic government in Gaza, it has been further tasked to su-pervise the disarmament of Hamas and deploying an International Stabilization Force (ISF). While these measures are presented as steps toward stability, they are controversial. Disarming a resistance group without addressing the root causes of conflict; namely occupation, blockade and denial of political rights may create further instability rather than peace. Pakistan’s decision to join the BoP reflects a cautious but hopeful approach. Paki-stan has expressed its intention to support the implementation of the Gaza Peace Plan as endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2803. Islamabad believes that the BoP could potentially facilitate a permanent ceasefire, ensure humanitarian as-sistance and contribute to the reconstruction of Gaza. At the same time, Pakistan has clearly stated its red lines. Pakistan supports the Palestinian right to self-determination through a credible, time-bound political process in accordance with international law and relevant UN resolutions. This process must result in the estab-lishment of an independent and sovereign State of Palestine based on pre-1967 borders, with Al-Quds Al-Sharif (Jerusalem) as its capital. Pakistan has also clarified that it will not deploy its military to disarm Hamas or participate in any mission that contradicts the wishes of the Palestinian people. In summary, while the Board of Peace may appear as a promising diplomatic initia-tive on paper, its structure, leadership and political context raise serious concerns. Without genuine accountability for Israeli actions, inclusive representation of Pales-tinians and a firm commitment to international law, the BoP risks becoming another symbolic gesture rather than a meaningful instrument of peace. Ultimately, peace in Gaza cannot be guaranteed by boards or declarations alone; it requires justice, po-litical will and an end to occupation. Without these foundations, the Board of Peace may prove to be little more than a misnomer in a region desperately in need of real solutions. —The writer is Professor of Politics and IR at International Islamic University, Islamabad.