Trump’s Board of Peace: First Meeting, First Stress Test

• Med this Week Middle East and North Africa
  by Lucia Dall'Asta
• whatsapp

The MED This Week newsletter provides informed insights on the most significant developments in the MENA region, bringing together unique opinions and reliable foresight on future scenarios. Today, we shed light on the possible scenarios arising from the first meeting of the Board of Peace and the uncertainties surrounding Gaza's reconstruction.

The Board of Peace is finally becoming a reality. But whether it will deliver reconstruction, legitimacy or simply controversy remains an open question. On Thursday 19 February, the first official meeting of the Board - established by US President Donald Trump, who chairs the body with extensive powers - will take place in Washington. While member states are set to unveil a collective $5 billion commitment for Gaza's reconstruction - which, according to UN estimates, amounts to around $70 billion - alongside plans to deploy thousands of personnel to international stabilisation and policing forces in the Strip, the meeting is also expected to clarify which countries will take part in these efforts. At this stage, in addition to the involvement of pivotal countries for the region - Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Turkey, Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait - also Israel confirmed its participation in the Board of Peace last week, and Indonesia has become the first country to signal its readiness to contribute to the International Stabilisation Forces by deploying 8,000 soldiers by June. European heavyweights have declined to join, with only Italy, Romania, Greece and Cyprus opting for observer status. However, questions regarding the body's impartiality and long-term purpose persist - especially since its mandate seems to span from overseeing Gaza's truce and reconstruction to addressing broader international conflicts, fuelling concerns that Washington may be seeking to create an alternative diplomatic body to the United Nations. At the same time, the broader context remains fragile, since violations of the ceasefire continue to claim Palestinian lives in Gaza. As billions are pledged and stabilisation forces discussed, the much-anticipated Phase Two of Trump's peace plan has yet to fully take shape, and the crucial questions remain unanswered: can reconstruction proceed without a clear political aim? And can a body whose legitimacy is already contested truly lay the foundations for a durable peace?

Experts from the ISPI network discuss the first meeting of the Board of Peace and the uncertainties surrounding Gaza's reconstruction.

How can the peace process in Palestine be unlocked? That is the question

"The first meeting of the Board of Peace (BoP) will first and foremost have to address the issue of the non-launch of Phase Two of the October ceasefire agreement. While the main European countries oppose this body, which is increasingly taking shape as a kind of private UN, the situation in the Gaza Strip has in fact remained more or less the same as it was five months ago, with an extremely serious humanitarian crisis and less frequent - yet still constant - bombardments of the civilian population, which have caused around 600 deaths since the truce. Progress towards peace in Palestine is at a standstill. The main stumbling block is the disarmament of Hamas, whose plan is still under consideration and is complicated by the issue of small arms and the dismantling of tunnels. These are essential conditions for Israel to authorise the withdrawal of its army from the half of the Strip it still controls. Another significant issue concerns Palestinian representation: amid the ongoing delegitimisation of the Palestinian Authority and the fact that the Palestinian technocratic government - the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, another key element of Phase Two - is still stuck in Cairo and prevented from entering the Strip. Meanwhile, yesterday, most European countries at the UN condemned Israel's new measures facilitating the annexation of the West Bank. Whether the relationship between the BoP and the UN will turn into a competition or a form of mutual encouragement remains to be seen; what matters is that the situation does not remain deadlocked."

Caterina Roggero, ISPI MENA Centre

A "whole of Gaza"approach

"Most Gazans remain displaced in harsh conditions, requiring urgent safety, winterised shelter, medical care, and clean water. Initial priorities must include a cessation of violence and significantly increased aid flows to address these needs. Expedited rubble and UXO (Unexploded Ordnance) removal is essential to prepare for early recovery and reconstruction. Simultaneously, the rehabilitation of housing and basic infrastructure, in particular in the areas of health, water, waste, and education should be prioritised. A reconstruction framework should adopt a 'whole of Gaza' approach and link Gaza with the West Bank, while prioritising Palestinian needs and expertise, such as the Phoenix Gaza plan. Creating local ownership through Palestinian-led governance and involvement of Palestinian labour and entrepreneurs is vital. Success also depends on freedom of movement and access from, to, and within Gaza - including Palestinians' access to Gaza's agricultural areas and the sea."

Muriel Asseburg, Senior Fellow, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP)

A reconstruction that sidelines the Palestinians

"The challenges Gaza faces today are huge, including addressing the unemployment rate that is already over 45%, removing over 80 million tonnes of rubble, building housing for 1.3 million displaced Palestinians, and rehabilitating 76% of destroyed schools and 53% of hospitals. The Board of Peace suggests addressing some of these problems by building high-rise buildings in Rafah and along the Mediterranean Sea, through foreign investment and the use of unemployed Gazan workers. However, it allows Israel to continue to define the scope of reconstruction, instead of putting an end to Israel's violation of international law and to the expansion of its occupation; Israel continues to control 53% of the Strip and refuses to allow the use of rubble to reclaim land from the sea. Israel continues to control the entry of all construction materials as well as goods. It also continues to kill Palestinian civilians on a daily basis. By failing to represent the Palestinians and to recognise their agency, the Board of Peace effectively allows Israel to reorganise its colonial control of the Strip and the Palestinian people instead of ending it in order to bring peace and prosperity."

Leila Farsakh, Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts Boston

An imbalanced "Day After"for Gaza

"Israel's participation in the Board of Peace, alongside the absence of the Palestinian Authority, profoundly shapes both the balance and the perceived legitimacy of the process, as well as the prospects for articulating and implementing a long-term vision for the Gaza Strip and beyond. While Israel's inclusion in the newly established forum ensures that deliberations reflect the concerns of a central sovereign actor, the exclusion of the Palestinian Authority produces a structural asymmetry that weakens the process's representative character and broader credibility. This dynamic is reinforced by Benjamin Netanyahu's longstanding reluctance to grant the Palestinian Authority any foothold in 'day after' planning for post-war Gaza, an approach rooted both in ideological scepticism towards Palestinian statehood and in domestic political calculations within his governing coalition. At the same time, Israel must carefully navigate the preferences and unpredictability of Donald Trump, who has positioned himself as Israel's principal global ally, but whose long-term commitment to the process remains unclear. Balancing Netanyahu's coalition imperatives at home with Israel's strategic dependence abroad constrains the scope and inclusivity of the process, potentially undermining the Board of Peace's efforts to push for major reconstruction of the Gaza Strip and the implementation of durable security arrangements, including disarming Hamas."

Ilai Zelig Saltzman, Director, Joseph and Alma Gildenhorn Institute for Israel Studies

Observer or broker? Italy's calculated role in the Board of Peace

"To define the Italian role on the Board of Peace, we should know the purpose of this body. Is it a real estate deal? The starting point for a Palestinian state and a lasting peace in the Middle East? Or is its audacious goal to replace the United Nations? Observer status is a traditionally silent role: it does not grant any power. Since the purpose of the Board is unclear, the most relevant European countries with the strongest democratic convictions did not join. The EU's participation as an observer on their behalf was sufficient. Not for Italy. And not for an alleged negotiating role. Rome just wants to protect its special relations with the Trump administration. Prime Minister Meloni has assumed the role of broker between America and Europe, at times risking being misunderstood by her continental allies. Time will tell if she is right."

Ugo Tramballi, Senior Advisor, ISPI