The “Board of Peace:” rebuilding Gaza, but on whose terms?

Opinion Donald TrumpgazaIsraelPalestine The “Board of Peace:” rebuilding Gaza, but on whose terms? Daily Life In Gaza Relevant News The “Board of Peace:” rebuilding Gaza, but on whose terms? 31 July 2026 Cyprus recorded EU’s highest seasonal water scarcity in 2023 31 July 2026 Cabinet reshuffle expected to be broader than leaked 31 July 2026 Theodosis Pipis 31 July 2026 FacebookXWhatsAppEmailPrintViber Today, Hamas has for the first time agreed the US-led Board of Peace’s disarmament proposal, although Israel has yet to respond. But is the Board of Peace the right path forward to long-lasting peace in Gaza? The Board of Peace would serve as the central international body overseeing Gaza’s transition from war to peace under the new framework. Rather than governing the territory directly, it would coordinate the implementation of the agreement, ensuring that each stage of the plan, from Hamas’s disarmament to Israel’s military withdrawal, is carried out as intended. It would also oversee the delivery of international aid and the multi-billion-dollar reconstruction effort aimed at rebuilding Gaza’s devastated infrastructure. The Board’s responsibilities would extend beyond reconstruction. It would supervise the multinational International Stabilisation Force responsible for maintaining security during the transition, monitor compliance with the peace agreement and help establish a new Palestinian technocratic administration to replace Hamas in governing Gaza. In effect, the Board would act as the political and administrative coordinator of the post-war transition, bringing together donor nations, security partners and international organisations under a single oversight mechanism. Under the current proposal, the Board would be led by the United States, with President Donald Trump serving as its chair. It would include senior U.S. officials alongside representatives from participating countries involved in reconstruction, security and humanitarian assistance. The Board includes representatives from participating member states. Reuters reports that founding member countries include the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Hungary, Bulgaria, Argentina, El Salvador and Paraguay, among others, while many European countries have attended only as observers rather than full members. Cyprus is one such country. While supporters argue that a U.S.-led body would provide the authority and resources needed to implement such a complex agreement, critics say the structure gives Washington disproportionate influence over Gaza’s future and leaves Palestinians with limited representation in the body’s highest levels of decision-making. However, peace cannot be imposed from above. At first glance, the proposed Board of Peace appears to be exactly what Gaza needs. After nearly three years of devastating Israeli attacks, the promise of coordinated reconstruction, international investment and a clear roadmap to stability is understandably attractive. A body capable of overseeing billions in aid, managing security and guiding Gaza’s political transition offers something the region has lacked for decades: a coherent plan. Yet the Board also raises an uncomfortable question. Who gets to decide what peace looks like? The proposal places extraordinary authority in the hands of an international body led by the United States and supported by a coalition of foreign governments. One could even argue that this is an effort by President Trump to further weaken the United Nations. The Board of Peace promises security, humanitarian relief and institutional reform, but it also concentrates unprecedented authority in an external body with limited Palestinian representation at its highest levels. The very name suggests reconciliation, yet for many Palestinians the central issue has never been simply restoring order. It has been the right to determine their own political future. History offers reasons for caution. International administrations in Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere helped end violence and rebuild institutions, but they also struggled with accusations of democratic deficits and prolonged external control. Stability can be created through international oversight, but legitimacy is much harder to import. It must ultimately come from those being governed. None of this is to suggest that the Board of Peace is destined to fail. Israel’s military operation in Gaza have created a large humanitarian catastrophe. International involvement is essential. However, coming from a designated, privately owned institution, with minimal Palestinian representation could not be the only answer. If peace is to endure, it cannot rest solely on foreign guarantees, military monitors or donor conferences. It must also rest on political legitimacy. Without meaningful Palestinian ownership of the process, even the most sophisticated peace architecture risks becoming another externally managed settlement, one that may rebuild buildings but struggles to build trust. Read more: Gaza’s road to peace? Inside the proposed deal Subscribe to our Newsletter Latest News Cyprus recorded EU’s highest seasonal water scarcity in 2023 Cabinet reshuffle expected to be broader than leaked Queer Wave film festival marks 7th year with September return to NiMAC Koshi-Athienou fire shows signs of arson, Department of Forests says (photos+videos) Firefighters contain major blaze between Koshi and Athienou Nicosia DLGO launches interactive dangerous buildings registry Confidence measures not a precondition for Cyprus talks, sources say Follow en.philenews on Google News and be the first to know all the news about Cyprus and the world.