Gaza once again appears to be turning into a diplomatic laboratory for global powers, where decisions are being imposed in the name of peace while the very people most affected by them the Palestinians are conspicuously absent from the process. The so-called “Board of Peace” established by U.S. President Donald Trump for Gaza has once again highlighted the bitter reality that global powers are not seeking peace in the Middle East, but rather attempting to redraw the region according to their own interests.
Ostensibly, this board has been formed for Gaza’s reconstruction, interim governance, and security stabilization; however, its structure, nominated individuals, and decision-making approach have rendered the project controversial from the outset.
Exclusion of Palestinians from decision-making
The most striking and alarming aspect of this board is the complete exclusion of the Palestinian people or any credible representative Palestinian leadership. This fact alone raises serious questions about the intent and direction of the initiative. Deciding the future of a region that has endured decades of occupation, blockade, bombardment, and collective punishment without involving its rightful inhabitants violates every ethical, political, and legal principle.
Critics rightly fear that the “Board of Peace” is not a framework for peace, but rather a new mechanism of control, through which Gaza will be placed under the direct or indirect influence of external powers.
Controversial appointments and power-driven orientation
The individuals appointed to the board themselves provoke deep concern. Tony Blair, whose name is closely associated with the Iraq war and Western intervention in the Middle East, is for Palestinians nothing short of a painful reminder of past injustices. Likewise, the inclusion of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, billionaire figures linked to global financial institutions, and representatives of the security establishment indicates that the board’s orientation leans far more toward political engineering and economic control than toward humanitarian concern. Had peace truly been the objective, Palestinian political factions, civil society actors, academics, and local leadership would have been at the center of this process from the very beginning.
Militarization under the banner of stabilization
The U.S. proposal to establish an international stabilization force in Gaza, led by an American major general, further exposes the militarized nature of this plan. The question that naturally arises is how additional security forces can bring peace to a region that has already suffered for decades under military occupation and relentless security operations. History bears witness to the fact that violence in Gaza is not rooted in a lack of security, but in political injustice, occupation, blockade, and the denial of self-determination. Without addressing these fundamental issues, any so-called “stabilization force” will amount to little more than another display of power.
Contradictions over Palestinian self-governance
Israel’s objection to a committee composed of Palestinian technocrats further complicates the situation. On the one hand, Israel rejects any form of Palestinian self-governance; on the other, the United States is establishing a board that would effectively function as a supervisory authority over Gaza’s local administration. This contradiction clearly demonstrates the absence of any transparent or mutually agreed vision for Gaza’s future. Instead, each party appears determined to impose its own conditions.
Legitimacy crisis and ground realities
Criticism of the board by Palestinian resistance groups underscores a crucial reality: no interim system can be sustainable if it ignores ground realities and popular sentiment. If the people of Gaza perceive this system as yet another conspiratorial framework imposed against them, its legitimacy will be compromised from the very beginning. Especially at a time when Gaza is facing a severe humanitarian crisis destroyed infrastructure, mass displacement, and ongoing Israeli military operations the promises of external planners ring hollow.
Peace based on power versus justice
The Trump administration’s claim that the “Board of Peace” will advance the second phase of a U.S.-sponsored peace plan in fact reflects a conception of peace based on power balances and strategic interests rather than justice and equality. Peace is not something that can be enforced under the shadow of guns; it is born from the recognition of people’s will, dignity, and fundamental rights. The idea of disarming Palestinians, crushing resistance, and silencing them through economic incentives has repeatedly failed throughout history.
Imposed peace or genuine resolution
Ultimately, the central question remains: will this “peace board” for Gaza truly deliver peace, or will it prove to be yet another failed experiment like so many before it? Until Palestinians are placed at the center of decisions about their own future, until occupation and blockade come to an end, and until justice is established as the foundation of peace, any board, force, or framework will remain an exercise in self-deception. Gaza does not need imposed peace it needs justice. And this is the truth that global powers continue to ignore.
Today's E-Paper