IN launching the second phase of his peace plan for Gaza, President Donald Trump announced a complex four-tier governance framework with Palestinians given no representation in the top three tiers and included only in a ‘technocratic committee’ with responsibility for little more than municipal affairs.
Trump placed himself at the head of the founding executive council of the Board of Peace to oversee Gaza’s governance. This is comprised of mostly pro-Israel Americans including his son-in-law, Tony Blair and a billionaire, with no representative from the Muslim world. This effectively means a colonial-style arrangement with outsiders being in control of Gaza. Not surprisingly, it met with strong disapproval from Palestinians. A Gaza Executive Board was established as a second-level council with several overlapping members from the top tier.
What attracted global attention and controversy was Trump’s proposal for an international Board of Peace, for which heads of 59 countries were invited. Notably, it excluded Palestinians. When its charter was leaked, it kicked off a diplomatic storm as it made no mention of Gaza but set itself up as a US-controlled global ‘organisation’ for ‘peace-building’ to rival the UN Security Council in its primary role in the maintenance of international peace and security. Trump himself made this explicit when he declared the Board could replace the UN. While its legality appeared doubtful, its broad remit extended to mediating global conflicts beyond Gaza.
The charter referred to the “need for a more nimble and effective international peace-building body”, berating “institutions that have too often failed”. It gave Trump, as chairman, sweeping authority and veto power, with his approval essential for all decisions and with final authority on all disputes. Member states will serve three-year terms and are expected to contribute to Gaza’s reconstruction, while countries paying a billion dollars would secure permanent membership. The latter evoked justified criticism across the world. The organisation itself is to exist well beyond Trump’s term in office, which raises questions about how an entity tied to his person and family/friends would survive beyond his presidency.
The second phase of Trump’s Gaza plan is mired in controversy and an uncertain future.
Trump’s aim in setting up this body is apparent. It is a smokescreen or cover to show he has international support and legitimacy for his unilateral plans not just in Gaza but beyond, without member states having any say or power. This means securing global endorsement for even yet-to-be-unveiled initiatives by him without consultation with member countries.
For a variety of reasons, many countries responded cautiously or sceptically to Trump’s invitation. Some, angered by his threat to seize Greenland, were quick to say no, such as France. Trump responded by threatening to raise tariffs on French wine. Spain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Slovenia also declined. The UK said it won’t join for now, citing the invitation to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Some countries announced their prompt acceptance, including Pakistan and Israel. Others voiced reservations about an organisation that would undermine the UN. Many held off or hedged when the Board’s signing ceremony was announced for Jan 21 at Davos.
An analysis in the Financial Times noted that among the Board’s inaugural members at Davos were “Six monarchs, three ex-Soviet apparatchiks, two military-backed regimes and a leader sought by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes”. It also said “joining [it] runs the risk not just of looking subservient … [but] … also flirts with violating international law”. The Guardian’s editorial described the Board as an “international body in service to one man’s ego”. Amnesty International saw the Board’s establishment as a “brazen disregard for international law”. The human rights body also said “It represents a stark new manifestation of the escalating assault on United Nations mechanisms, international justice institutions and universal norms”.
The first test of the Board’s international acceptability came at Davos. Fewer than 20 countries signed to join the Board, including the prime minister of Pakistan. True, there were others who announced to join that weren’t present in Davos. Nevertheless, the Board’s inauguration ceremony hardly reflected international enthusiasm or lived up to its hype by the Trump administration. No leader from Western Europe was present in what appeared to be a collective boycott. Meanwhile, the Board’s effectiveness was widely questioned across the world.
But beyond the convoluted governance structure, actions taken to implement the second phase of the Gaza plan are what will really matter. The plan has to meet the reality on the ground. In considering this, it is apparent the first phase of the ceasefire has not seen full compliance by Israel. The Israeli military has continued to daily violate the ceasefire, killing over 450 Palestinians since October, when the ceasefire came into force. Israel’s severe restrictions on aid have not significantly eased Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. In the West Bank, Israel’s assaults and settler violence have created a nightmare for Palestinians. Above all, Tel Aviv remains noncommittal about Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, a core requirement of the peace plan. Recent statements by Trump put the onus on Hamas rather than both parties to take the next steps. At Davos, he again warned Hamas must disarm, otherwise it will be the end of them. He said nothing about Israel’s obligation to withdraw from Gaza.
The issue of disarming Hamas remains unresolved. The Palestinian resistance group insists this won’t happen until Israeli occupation ends and Palestinian statehood is assured. Without an Israeli commitment to withdraw from Gaza, it is unclear how demilitarisation will proceed. Then there is the contentious question of the International Stabilisation Force, which is supposed to be deployed soon. But no country has yet made a firm commitment to contribute troops because its mandate and rules of engagement have not been spelt out, much less agreed to. The only announcement is of an American major general heading the force. Hamas remains opposed to the deployment of foreign troops, which it sees as playing a role against the Palestinian resistance if their mandate is to disarm it. It is thus far only willing to accept a force deployed at the borders under UN supervision.
All this suggests many hurdles lie ahead to execute a plan that still doesn’t have full buy-in from the two principal parties — Israel and Hamas. While the Palestinians wait for peace and justice, the risk remains of the plan going awry and resulting in a messy situation.
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.
Published in Dawn, January 26th, 2026
