Trump’s Board of Peace: Bold reset or bypass of Palestine?

2026-01-25 - 21:05

A new US-led body promises to rebuild Gaza and secure Israel, but can peace be engineered without the voice of the governed? Unveiled with fanfare in Davos, US President Donald Trump’s newly minted Board of Peace (BoP) is being billed as a game-changer for Gaza and the wider Middle East. Backed by 25 states and armed with a formal legal mandate, the body aims to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction, guarantee Israel’s security, and, ultimately, break the deadlock in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Reactions to the initiative have been sharply divided. Supporters view the Board of Peace as a pragmatic response to exhaustion after years of war, while skeptics question its legitimacy, mandate, and most notably, the absence of Palestinian political representation. With Israel directly involved and Palestinians sidelined, doubts persist over whether the initiative can deliver peace rather than simply manage a crisis. To assess the BoP’s prospects and pitfalls, RT spoke with three experts, from Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye, asking how the initiative is perceived across the region, how it differs from past US peace efforts, and whether it stands any real chance of reducing violence or reshaping Middle East diplomacy altogether. Read more The monetary system is broken and gold knows why RT: How is Trump’s proposed Board of Peace being viewed in your country and the wider region? Mohammed Najib, a Ramallah-based analyst and journalist: In Palestine, Gaza and the West Bank, the prevailing mood is skepticism, mixed with fatigue and conditional hope. The initiative is widely seen as an external framework that still does not resolve core political questions (sovereignty, governance legitimacy, Israeli withdrawals). Any mechanism tied to ceasefire durability, crossings, aid, and reconstruction can bring immediate relief. The Gazan people raise doubts about whether the plan will change conditions on the ground, given the ongoing insecurity and hardships despite the ceasefire framework. In the wider region, reactions are split and transactional. Several key regional states have signaled their willingness to participate (or to explore participation, such as Jordan) in managing a post-war Gaza file and preventing regional spillover, while European powers have shown caution, partly due to governance and mandate ambiguity and partly because the body could undermine established multilateral structures. The Palestinians believe there are two main obstacles: Israel, which controls the Gaza borders and could obstruct the free entry of reconstruction materials into Gaza, or refuse to withdraw from Gaza; and Hamas, which still has influence over the Gazan people, despite accepting the transfer of authority to the newly formed Palestinian technocratic Administrative Committee, and could apply the Lebanese model, with a civilian government but the real force and power in Hezbollah’s hands. Actually, the Palestinians in Gaza believe that Israel will not fully withdraw from Gaza and that it is merely maneuvering and buying time. Mohammed Najib Khaled Batarfi, a professor at Faisal University: Saudi Arabia sees the initiative through a pragmatic and forward-looking lens. The region has been exhausted by cycles of war in Gaza, and any framework that can support a sustainable ceasefire, reconstruction, and humanitarian access is viewed as a potential platform for stability. Riyadh’s position is consistent: if a mechanism, whether American-led or multilateral, can reinforce international law, reduce violence, and help deliver an organized post-war environment in Gaza, then it deserves to be explored. Across the region, governments are cautious but generally hopeful. There is recognition that the Middle East needs new tools and fresh diplomatic formats capable of breaking long-standing deadlocks, provided that they complement, rather than replace, the UN framework. Khaled Batarfi Gökhan Batu, an expert on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs based in Ankara: Despite economic constraints, Türkiye enters this period with enhanced regional influence, strengthened by defense investments, advanced technology, and an active diplomatic posture. Over the past five years, Ankara has largely secured its objectives in regional contests without provoking major crises, making cooperation with Türkiye increasingly attractive for many actors. Peace-building and mediation have long been central to Turkish foreign policy, alongside President Erdogan’s critique of the UN Security Council, encapsulated in the phrase “The world is bigger than five.” In this sense, the BoP aligns with long-standing Turkish concerns about the inadequacy of the current global order. However, Ankara remains cautious. Provisions granting extensive authority to the Chairman and certain decision-making mechanisms diverge from Türkiye’s perspective. Given ongoing uncertainties and the likelihood of revisions, Türkiye is expected to continue observing developments rather than taking a definitive stance. Gökhan Batu RT: Does this plan represent a genuine diplomatic effort, or is it symbolic or political in nature? Najib: It is diplomacy in form, but political signaling in structure; diplomacy explicitly linked to sustaining the Gaza ceasefire and to post-war stabilization and reconstruction discussions, with prominent international figures and states invited to participate. Political signaling in structure because reporting indicates major uncertainties about the mandate, decision-making processes, and legitimacy, alongside controversial features such as a proposed $1 billion “buy-in” for permanent membership and concerns raised by diplomats and allies that it may rival or bypass the UN system rather than strengthen it. Even wire coverage notes that the initiative was unveiled with limited operational detail at launch, another reason many observers treat it as partly symbolic until the implementation rules are clear. Also, the Palestinians believe that some countries joined the Board of Peace not because they are persuaded by it, but to avoid the consequences of angering Trump by rejecting it. Read more Is it time to START worrying? Nuclear restraint is about to fade without a fight Gaza has now come under US CENTCOM control, so the Palestinians see that they are heading towards a foreign mandate. Batarfi: From a Saudi perspective, intentions matter less than outcomes. If the Board of Peace contributes to stopping the war, enabling aid, rebuilding Gaza, and creating conditions for a political horizon, then it becomes a practical diplomatic tool. The structure may carry symbolic or political elements, but what matters to Riyadh is whether the body can deliver tangible results: stability on the ground, accountability, and a more predictable environment for civilians. In that sense, the plan has the potential to move beyond symbolism, if it operates in partnership with regional actors and in line with the UN-approved Gaza plan. Batu: The plan reflects a broader shift in US policy under Trump’s second term, where international institutions, especially the UN, are increasingly portrayed as liabilities rather than assets. The US withdrawal of funding from UN bodies and debates within NATO point to a serious challenge to