The world first heard of US President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” last September, when he unveiled his 20-point peace plan for Gaza.
The Board appeared in the ninth point of the plan, following eight provisions focused almost entirely on ending the war, resolving the hostage issue, dismantling Hamas militarily and politically, and stabilizing Gaza through massive humanitarian aid and reconstruction.
Its structure and purpose, as laid out in that plan, were exceedingly vague. The Board was described as an “international transitional body” headed by Trump that would oversee and supervise the temporary governance of Gaza by a “technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee,” responsible for the day-to-day running of public services and municipalities for Gaza's people.
The 20-point plan said this body would “set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza” until the Palestinian Authority could get its act together to the degree that it “can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza.”
That was the Board of Peace - at least back then. Amorphous, limited in scope, and narrowly focused on Gaza.
Fast forward to January, and the Board of Peace has metastasized into something else entirely- at least on paper.
An international organization potentially resembling the UN
In the intervening four months, it has gone from a mechanism designed to oversee governance in Gaza to, according to its charter, “an international organization that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.”
In other words, something resembling an alternative United Nations.
Trump did not dismiss that suggestion when it was raised at a press conference on Tuesday. “I wish the United Nations could do more,” he said. “I wish we didn’t need a Board of Peace.”
Trump is expected to formally launch this new world body at a signing ceremony in Davos on Thursday. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday that Israel would accept Trump’s invitation to join, though he did not say whether Jerusalem would pony up the $1 billion fee required to become a founding member, a status that would guarantee permanent membership.
Israel would join the following countries that already said they would join: the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Hungary, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Pakistan, Qatar, and Vietnam. Some 50 invitations were sent out, and other countries will surely follow suit.
Several countries, including France, Sweden, and Norway, declined to join, while Canada and Germany are reportedly sitting on the fence.
Critics, including some within Netanyahu’s own coalition, took issue with his announcement of Israel’s participation. They argued that joining the Board effectively advances Israel into the next phase of Trump’s 20-point plan, even though Hamas has not lived up to its commitments to release all Israeli hostages, living and dead, and continues to hold the body of Ran Gvili.
For Israel, the decision to join the Board of Peace is not without logic. Nor, however, is it cost-free.
First, the logic. By joining the Board, Israel gains institutional access to Trump-led decision-making on Gaza governance and reconstruction.
The Board of Peace is meant to set the overall vision for Gaza, and it is clearly in Israel’s interest to be at the table where those decisions are being made, especially when sitting across from figures such as Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, rather than being forced to contend later with a fait accompli designed by others.
Participation also gives Israel a platform to press for Hamas’s disarmament before any Israeli withdrawal or large-scale investment in Gaza’s reconstruction takes place. The Board could provide Israel with a channel to shape demilitarization arrangements, border controls, and monitoring mechanisms, rather than leaving those sensitive issues to be worked out solely among Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt.
Furthermore, as the Board is now expected to involve itself in other conflicts around the world, having a voice in those deliberations will give Israel a degree of international status.
Israeli participation in BoP may expand Abraham Accords
Second, membership puts Israel “inside the room” with key regional players such as Egypt, the UAE, Morocco, and others who are positioning themselves as central to Gaza’s reconstruction. Muslim countries such as Indonesia, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan are also going to be there, leading to more interaction that could add momentum to efforts to expand the Abraham Accords, a process Trump has said he wants to see continue.
Participation also sends a signal to Washington that, despite reservations about Turkey and Qatar's involvement, Jerusalem is willing to work within a US-led framework. That, in turn, helps counter criticism that Israel is obstructionist or lacks a coherent vision for “the day after” Gaza.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, joining the Board signals Israel’s alignment with the Trump administration’s foreign policy priorities and objectives.
Israel has a clear interest in staying on the president’s good side, and this is a relatively low-cost way of doing so. Moreover, if the rise of the Board ultimately weakens the standing of the United Nations, that would be a boon for Israel, given the UN’s long record of entrenched bias against it.
At the same time, joining the Board carries clear risks.
By participating in a body that, at least in theory, is meant to oversee governance in Gaza, Israel relinquishes a degree of unilateral decision-making authority over the area.
Membership on this Board could constrain future policy options by internationalizing the decisions related to Gaza. Potentially, this could erode Jerusalem’s ability to manage its security corridor within the Strip and to shape postwar arrangements through direct bilateral negotiations with Egypt and the US.
Politically, the move may also create friction inside Netanyahu’s coalition. Both National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have publicly opposed participation in Trump’s overall plan, and Israel’s formal entry into the Board could trigger additional tensions at an already delicate political moment.
Most problematically, participation sets a precedent. It reinforces the idea that international bodies can be invited into the arena, strengthening arguments for similar arrangements in the future when it comes to Judea, Samaria, or even Jerusalem itself, a prospect that many in Israel view as extremely problematic.