Trump’s Board of Peace: A New Chapter or Quiet Bypass of Palestine?

In the icy air of Davos, January 2026, US President Donald Trump unveiled what he calls the Board of Peace (BoP)—a new, ambitious attempt to reshape the landscape of one of the most stubborn conflicts in modern history. Presented with a blend of optimism and ceremony, this US-led body pledges to rebuild Gaza, guarantee Israel’s security, and, ultimately, break the cycle of violence that has long defined the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But beneath the surface, cracks appear. The BoP has drawn both cautious hope and sharp skepticism. Twenty-five states back it, yet conspicuously absent from the table are Palestinian political representatives, a glaring omission that raises pressing questions: Can peace be engineered when the voices of the governed are sidelined? Is this an earnest diplomatic reset—or a sophisticated way to manage conflict without resolving it?

The Promise and the Problem

At first glance, the Board of Peace seems to offer a fresh approach. Unlike previous efforts centered on direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, this initiative aims to focus on Gaza’s immediate reconstruction and security stabilization, involving a wider coalition of states. Supporters argue this reflects pragmatism born from war-weariness, a shift from grand promises to tangible, ground-level action.

Yet, for many Palestinians and regional observers, the picture is more complicated. Mohammed Najib, a Ramallah-based analyst, describes a prevailing mood of skepticism mixed with guarded hope. Gaza’s people, battered by years of conflict and insecurity, question whether the BoP will alter their daily reality. The absence of Palestinian political leadership on the Board fuels concerns that this is less about peace than crisis containment under foreign oversight.

This exclusion is not accidental. Israel, as a decisive military and political force in the region, holds structural leverage—control over borders, security arrangements, and the flow of aid. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s presence on the Board, alongside influential Israeli business figures, starkly contrasts with the Palestinian sidelining, casting a long shadow over the body’s legitimacy.

Regional Reactions: Between Hope and Hesitation

The broader Middle East reacts with cautious pragmatism. Saudi Arabia views the Board through a lens of practical stability. Khaled Batarfi, a Saudi academic, emphasizes that stopping violence, enabling humanitarian aid, and reconstructing Gaza are priorities that the initiative could address—if executed in alignment with international law and regional interests. Yet Riyadh insists Palestinian participation remains essential for any lasting success.

Türkiye, with growing regional influence, watches closely. The country’s approach, shaped by President Erdogan’s critique of the global order, hints at support for alternatives to the United Nations-dominated framework. Still, Ankara remains wary of the Board’s governance model and decision-making powers, opting for observation over immediate endorsement.

European powers, too, tread carefully, concerned that the BoP could undermine established multilateral mechanisms and lacks clarity on its mandate and legitimacy.

 

 

A Shift from Past Diplomacy

Compared to earlier US-led peace efforts—the 2003 Roadmap or the 2007 Annapolis process—the Board of Peace signals a shift. It prioritizes immediate crisis governance over final-status negotiations. Stabilization, reconstruction, and security management come first; political resolution, if it comes at all, is a later ambition.

This shift is telling. It reflects a world where traditional peace talks have stalled, where a direct negotiation track has failed to materialize sustainable change. Yet, critics argue that the asymmetry of representation—the inclusion of Israeli officials but not Palestinians—repeats past patterns of sidelining Palestinian agency, echoing earlier Trump-era approaches that heavily favored Israeli positions.

Will It Work? The Reality on the Ground

The BoP’s effectiveness hinges on difficult realities. On paper, it offers a framework to coordinate ceasefire durability, manage aid flows, and oversee reconstruction logistics. But on the ground, ongoing violence, contested borders, and mistrust complicate implementation.

For the Board to succeed even in crisis management, it must deliver credible security guarantees, reliable access to Gaza, and enforceable governance arrangements. Otherwise, it risks becoming another forum for stalled promises.

Saudi Arabia’s stance offers a potential path: sustained ceasefire enforcement, transparent reconstruction efforts, and a security environment preventing unilateral dominance. Under these conditions, the Board might help stabilize Gaza and reduce violence—though it cannot replace the need for a genuine political horizon.

Palestinian Exclusion: What It Means

The absence of Palestinians at the decision-making table sends a profound message. To many, it signals a negotiation about their future without their voice, a relegation of political rights to technocratic governance. This fuels distrust not only among Palestinians but across Arab and Muslim states, risking further alienation in a conflict deeply tied to identity and self-determination.

Saudi Arabia’s insistence that Palestinians must be partners, not bystanders, underscores the political complexity but also the moral imperative. Without meaningful inclusion, the Board may be seen less as a peace initiative and more as an external management tool, raising doubts about its long-term legitimacy.

A Fragile Bridge, Not a Final Solution

In truth, the Board of Peace appears more as a delicate bridge over troubled waters than a final destination. It may help freeze escalation, coordinate humanitarian relief, and provide a structure for rebuilding. Yet, the deeper conflict—rooted in questions of sovereignty, borders, and rights—remains unresolved.

As analyst Gökhan Batu notes, lasting peace demands more than crisis management. It requires addressing core demands, including political representation, enforceable agreements, and international alignment. The current reality, with Israel reluctant to negotiate with Palestinian factions and Palestinians politically sidelined, paints a bleak picture for comprehensive resolution.

Quiet Questions Beneath the Surface

The Board of Peace invites reflection beyond its public narrative. Is this initiative an honest attempt to break a deadlock, or is it a way to normalize a new status quo under foreign oversight? Can peace truly be built without the full participation of those most affected? And as the international order shifts—challenged by new power dynamics and skepticism toward traditional institutions—what does this mean for the future of conflict resolution in the Middle East?

The answers remain uncertain. But one thing is clear: peace without inclusion risks becoming mere management of conflict. In this fragile moment, the region watches, waiting to see if this Board will hold or crumble beneath the weight of its omissions.