The Politics Behind the Board of Peace

2026-02-23 - 21:14

President Trump’s peace plan, a twenty-point document drafted by the Trump administration, was initially set in motion with a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas on October 9, 2025. The “Board of Peace” was then anchored in United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803, formally adopted on 17 November 2025, as a focused initiative to bring peace to the Gaza Strip, including stabilization and reconstruction efforts. At the time of its launch, the resolution received broad international support, including endorsement from Western states that welcomed the initiative. However, since then, the charter has undergone substantial deviation. The current version presented at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2026 represents a clear departure from the original framework and has faced a lot of scepticism. The newly released charter criticizes “institutions that have too often failed and seek to promote stability, restore lawful governance and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict”, a direct reference to the United Nations. The charter ostensibly promises more nimble and effective approaches but lacks enforcement, dispute resolution and accountability mechanisms, as well as a structure that enables good governance. Many call it the ‘Trump Board’ because of his complete and undisputed control over its functioning; the excessive personalization of the board is widely viewed as problematic. Trump’s Board of Peace, set out in an eleven-page charter of eight chapters and thirteen articles, does not mention Gaza even once. It now carries a global mandate, operating outside the UN framework, with no reference to Gaza and no limitation to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This deviation reflects a highly centralized, almost individual-centric structure lacking legitimacy. The response has been notably tepid, with major states such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy, which had supported the original plan, now showing reluctance to join. Once again, President Trump appears to be working with a “coalition of the willing,” reminiscent of earlier phases of U.S. foreign policy under President George Bush, when the UN was bypassed to invade Iraq on the false presumption of weapons of mass destruction. The concentration of power within the Board and around President Trump has become a major source of concern. The Board, originally established as a complementary entity to the United Nations through a UN resolution, now appears to be bypassing and openly defying that very framework — both discarding and disregarding it. In the meantime, Hamas is seeking legitimacy; it has requested for an impartial investigation by the International Court of Justice into the events of October 7, including the attacks carried out by Hamas and the subsequent Israeli conduct in Gaza. In support of its appeal, Hamas has published a detailed 42-page account outlining its version of the October 7 incidents. The document argues that the “Western media and Zionist lobby groups” launched a disinformation campaign about the attack and claims that “The Israeli entity promoted a series of lies and fallacies about killing children and raping women, paving the way to proceed with an all-out genocide project that was pre-planned and aims to erase Gaza from existence.” Also, that Israel has tangible designs of annexing the West Bank. The Board’s status as an impartial arbitrator is also compromised because it has offered executive positions to controversial figures, including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, an accomplice of the US in the Iraq war and a figure with limited credibility in the Middle East, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is party to the conflict in Gaza and under investigation by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes. Most notably, there is no Palestinian representation not even cosmetic. “I don’t call it a Board of Peace. I call it a Board of Liquidating the Palestinian Cause” said the Palestinian Academic and Analyst Professor Kamel Hawwash. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, Japan, and Israel have accepted Trump’s invitation, largely out of compulsion. About 40 of the 60 states that Washington has courted have not yet joined. A major bone of contention is that Hamas seeks peacekeeping for and by Palestinians. In short, it is willing to accept a foreign presence that acts as a buffer against Israel but rejects an external force that replaces its control or disarms its personnel. President Trump and Israel, in direct contradiction, insist that Hamas disarm as a precondition to the commencement of reconstruction. However, the second phase of the plan calls for the complete disarmament of Hamas and the destruction of its underground tunnel network, core demands of Israel. The Board of Peace is fundamentally working to alter the situation in Gaza to Israel’s advantage and not bring peace; thus, by design it remains a non-starter. The summit declaration that “the war is over and peace is possible” still appears to be a pipe dream. President Trump had made a similar declaration on October 13, 2025, during a trip to Israel and Egypt. Even in early 2026, observers noted that the ceasefire remained fragile and that violence continued, making any declaration of an end to the war premature. By becoming a founding member of the Board of Peace, Pakistan is on the right side of the US. Both Trump and Rubio appreciate Pakistan’s support and participation in the Board of Peace. It gives Pakistan much-desired diplomatic visibility and international legitimacy. It may, however, strain its relationship with China, compromise its role in the Middle East, and deepen domestic faultlines. The fact that Saudi Arabia is on the Board is a point of validation for Pakistan. Pakistan’s decision continues to draw sharp criticism, more from within the country than outside, indicating the polarized and toxic political culture of the country. The KP Assembly recently passed a resolution condemning the government’s decision to join the Board of Peace as a dangerous development. The situation on the ground reflects that Pakistan’s foreign policy is once again shaped by constraints and compulsions. Its precarious economic and internal security situation compels it to make calculated choices. The IMF pressure and the significant bargaining power the US holds over trade, tariffs, and investment flows further reinforce this reality. So far, Pakistan has played its cards well. It has become a part of the Board but has not made any tangible commitments so far, categorically drawing a redline of not getting involved in disarming Hamas. It is not a part of the interventionist framework, restricting its role to humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping, not stated explicitly in so many words but clearly implied. We hope that Pakistan’s membership of the BoP will not upset the delicate equilibrium that Pakistan has been able to maintain, most notably between China and the US. Pakistan post May 2025 is now formally recognized as a middle power in both the region and beyond.