Trump’s Gaza “Board of Peace”: A $1 Billion Ticket to Permanent Membership
In a bold diplomatic move, President Trump’s administration has unveiled a new initiative aimed at reconstructing war-torn Gaza through the formation of a “Board of Peace.” According to White House confirmations, countries seeking permanent seats on this board will need to contribute a substantial sum of $1 billion in cash funds within the first year of the charter’s implementation. This requirement, detailed in a draft charter distributed to dozens of nations worldwide, establishes a two-tier membership structure: permanent members who contribute the billion-dollar sum and temporary members who serve renewable three-year terms without a minimum financial commitment. As the inaugural chairman of the Board, President Trump will personally select which countries sit on the panel, giving him significant influence over the reconstruction process and international involvement in Gaza’s future.
The White House rapid response team has clarified that the $1 billion requirement applies only to countries seeking permanent membership, describing it as an opportunity for “partner countries who demonstrate deep commitment to peace, security, and prosperity.” This substantial financial commitment is intended to fund the Board’s ambitious reconstruction efforts in Gaza, creating a pool of resources that will be directed toward rebuilding infrastructure and restoring stability to the region. However, the announcement has already sparked diplomatic tensions, particularly with the Israeli government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office released a statement expressing frustration that the composition of the Board “was not coordinated with Israel and runs contrary to its policy,” with particular concern over the reported inclusion of countries like Turkey and Qatar, which have had complicated relationships with Israel in the past.
The Board of Peace initiative represents phase two of a three-stage Gaza peace plan orchestrated by special envoy Steve Witkoff. The plan began last October with phase one, which successfully secured the release of all living hostages held by Hamas and saw Israel scale back its military presence in densely populated areas of Gaza. Now moving into the more challenging second phase, the plan calls for Hamas to disarm and transfer control of the Gaza Strip to international peacekeepers and a new technocratic government that would operate under the supervision of the Board of Peace. This phase aims to address the monumental tasks of deradicalization and reconstruction, though Hamas has consistently maintained that it will not surrender its weapons, presenting a significant obstacle to the plan’s full implementation.
At the center of this transition plan is Dr. Ali Sha’ath, a former Palestinian Authority bureaucrat who has been appointed to lead the technocratic government intended to assume control in Gaza. The White House has praised Sha’ath as “a widely respected technocratic leader” who will oversee the restoration of essential public services, rebuild civil institutions, and work toward stabilizing daily life for Gaza’s residents. His administration would also be responsible for establishing the foundation for long-term, self-sustaining governance in the region. This approach reflects the administration’s strategy of creating and empowering an alternative to Hamas that is committed to peaceful development and stability, even as the militant group continues to resist disarmament demands.
The formation of the Board of Peace represents a unique approach to international peacekeeping and reconstruction, creating a financial incentive for long-term commitment from wealthy nations while establishing a structured framework for Gaza’s recovery. By setting the high price tag for permanent membership, the Trump administration appears to be ensuring that only countries with significant resources and serious long-term interest in Middle Eastern stability will have ongoing influence in the process. This arrangement also creates a formal mechanism for channeling international aid directly into reconstruction efforts under American leadership, potentially circumventing some of the challenges that have plagued previous international aid efforts in the region where funds have sometimes been diverted or ineffectively deployed.
Despite the ambitious nature of this plan, significant challenges remain, particularly Hamas’s continued refusal to disarm and questions about the practical implementation of a new governing structure in such a complex environment. The reaction from Israel suggests potential complications in coordinating international efforts with regional stakeholders, and the success of the Board will likely depend on delicate diplomacy among nations with diverse interests in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the initiative represents a bold attempt to break the cycle of conflict and destruction in Gaza by creating international financial stakes in the region’s stability and prosperity. As the process unfolds, the world will be watching closely to see which nations step forward with their billion-dollar commitments and whether this unprecedented approach can succeed where previous peace efforts have faltered.
