The world watched on February 19, 2026, as the inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace (BOP) convened at the newly renamed Donald J. Trump U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C. In a display of what supporters call “common sense” transactional diplomacy, President Donald Trump gathered a “coalition-of-the-willing” to oversee the Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict. While the board promises a “new dawn” for Gaza—complete with a $17 billion starting fund and a “Mediterranean Riviera” vision—it faces a gauntlet of skepticism regarding its legitimacy, security framework, and the total exclusion of Palestinian representation from its executive leadership.
A Business-First Approach to Peace
The Board of Peace is not your typical international body. Chaired by Trump and stacked with a “team of world leaders,” the board operates more like a corporate entity than a UN subcommittee. The financial commitments are staggering: Trump pledged $10 billion from the United States, while a bloc of nations including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Kazakhstan contributed an additional $7 billion. Even FIFA has joined the fray, pledging $75 million to build a “football ecosystem” in Gaza, including a 25,000-seat national stadium.
This “peace through construction” model seeks to bypass traditional, often stalled, multilateral mechanisms. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted, the situation in Gaza required a “solution outside the box” because existing international institutions had failed to provide a path forward.
The Security Gamble: Disarmament or Resumed War?
The bedrock of the plan is the International Stabilization Force (ISF), commanded by U.S. Major General Jasper Jeffers. The ISF aims to deploy 20,000 soldiers and 12,000 police officers to Gaza, with initial troop commitments from Indonesia, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Albania. Indonesia alone has signaled a readiness to deploy up to 8,000 troops.
However, the entire vision—including Yakir Gabay’s plan to remove 70 million tons of rubble and build 200 hotels—is strictly conditional on the “full disarmament of Hamas”. Israel has underscored this by setting a 60-day ultimatum for Hamas to surrender all weapons, including small arms, or face a resumption of full-scale military operations. Critics argue that without a clear political solution or the buy-in of local factions, the ISF risks becoming a buffer force in a perpetual “government-in-exile” scenario.
Governance and the Legitimacy Gap
The day-to-day administration of Gaza has been handed to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), a group of Palestinian technocrats led by Dr. Ali Shaath. While designed to be apolitical and “insulated from Hamas influence,” the NCAG has already faced hurdles, including reports of being “frustrated by a lack of direction” and logistical barriers to actually entering Gaza through the Rafah crossing.
Perhaps the most glaring critique is the lack of any Palestinian representative on the Board of Peace itself. While Trump describes the board as “the most prestigious ever put together,” major European allies like the UK, France, and Germany have remained observers rather than members, wary of the board’s potential to undermine the United Nations.
The Road Ahead
The Board of Peace represents a radical departure from decades of Middle Eastern diplomacy. It replaces “endless talk” with a high-stakes, donor-led model that prioritizes economic stabilization and security over long-term political status. For supporters like Pakistan’s Shehbaz Sharif, Trump is a “man of peace” capable of averting catastrophe. For skeptics, the board is an “imperial court” that risks marginalizing international law and Palestinian self-determination.
As the 60-day disarmament clock ticks down, the world will soon learn if Gaza will indeed become a “Riviera” or if this latest plan is merely a $17 billion prelude to a renewed conflict.