President Donald Trump has convened the first-ever meeting of the Board of Peace in Washington, D.C., announcing a $5 billion aid pledge for rebuilding Gaza. This ambitious international effort aims to respond to the devastation from years of conflict, but questions remain about its structure, inclusivity, and long-term effectiveness.
The debut session of the Board of Peace, held in Washington, marks a major push by President Trump to take the lead role in Gaza’s postwar reconstruction. Trump, calling the effort potentially “the most consequential International Body in History,” said member nations are formally committing billions of dollars and thousands of stabilization personnel to Gaza.
The plan intends to rebuild vast swaths of Gaza, nearly demolished after two years of conflict between Israel and Hamas. The United Nations estimates actual rebuilding may ultimately need more than $70 billion, highlighting the scale and difficulty of the project.
The Board of Peace’s model sidesteps traditional UN-led mechanisms, favoring a coalition of financially committed states. Indonesia is already pledging up to 8,000 troops for security and humanitarian duties by summer, and further Arab participation is anticipated.
The effort faces a major security component: disarming Hamas is a precondition for full reconstruction, satisfying key Israeli demands for the process to move forward. However, local populations and some experts question the absence of broader Palestinian involvement in deciding Gaza’s future.
Similar international projects, from East Timor to Kosovo, show that top-down governance models can speed up infrastructure repair and stabilization—but may breed resentment and instability if local voices are marginalized. Critics argue that the Board of Peace risks repeating these pitfalls by excluding both Hamas and the official Palestinian Authority from major roles.
The Board’s structure gives most power to states willing to contribute at least $1 billion, making it exclusive and heavily influenced by donor priorities. Some fear this could reinforce outside control while sidelining efforts for just, long-term peace in Gaza.
While the Board’s first meeting set ambitious expectations, its impact depends on execution. The leadership will need to balance donor interests, Israeli security, and genuine involvement of Palestinian technocrats working on the ground in Gaza. For many, this initiative is a pivotal experiment in forging peace and rebuilding devastated lands through alternative international coalitions.
As violence and ceasefire violations continue to trouble Gaza, the world is watching to see whether the Board of Peace can break the cycle, or if it will become another chapter in the long history of complex international interventions.