The 'Board of Peace': A Neo-Colonial Blueprint for Perpetual Domination
Published
- 3 min read
Introduction: The Washington Meeting and Its Implications
On February 19, 2026, a significant and troubling geopolitical development unfolded in Washington D.C. President Donald Trump hosted the inaugural meeting of his newly formed “Board of Peace,” ostensibly created to oversee the reconstruction of Gaza. The event brought together representatives from approximately two dozen countries, with the United States announcing a substantial commitment of $10 billion towards rebuilding the war-torn territory. An additional $7 billion in relief funding was pledged by nine nations: Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and Kuwait. Notably absent from full participation were major Western powers like the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Canada, who chose to limit their involvement or decline formal membership altogether.
The board has been framed as a novel international instrument for addressing conflicts in volatile regions worldwide. However, this characterization masks a deeper reality—one that threatens to further undermine an already fragile global multilateral system. At the time of the meeting, the United States owed nearly $4 billion in arrears to the United Nations, an institution that this new board appears designed to circumvent. The creation of parallel diplomatic structures during a period of heightened international tension represents not a reinforcement of peace mechanisms but rather their deliberate weakening.
Contextualizing the Initiative: Multilateral Mandates Versus Unilateral Actions
The concerns regarding this initiative were powerfully articulated at the 2026 Munich Security Conference by EU High Representative Kaja Kallas. She pointed out that the current Board of Peace bears little resemblance to the UN Security Council resolution that originally provided for such a body. That resolution specified critical limitations: the board was to exist only until 2027, required meaningful Palestinian participation, and was explicitly tied to Gaza’s specific context. The statute of Trump’s Board of Peace makes no reference to these essential conditions, creating a dangerous gap between multilateral mandates and unilaterally implemented structures.
This discrepancy raises fundamental questions about legitimacy and scope. When powerful nations selectively ignore internationally agreed-upon frameworks while creating alternative mechanisms that serve their strategic interests, they effectively sabotage the very principles of global cooperation. The composition of the board further deepens these concerns. Participants range from established governments to leaders with deeply contested commitments to human rights and democratic norms. Israel, represented by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is included despite ongoing international scrutiny over its actions in Gaza. The involvement of figures like Jared Kushner and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair on executive committees shaping the board’s direction raises additional questions about governance and accountability.
Palestinian Exclusion: The Fatal Flaw in the Architecture
Perhaps the most glaring deficiency in this entire initiative is the near-total exclusion of Palestinian voices from a process fundamentally about their future. Despite the meeting’s focus on Gaza, only one Palestinian speaker—Ali Shaath, head of the U.S.-backed National Committee for the Administration of Gaza—was afforded a platform at the opening session. This tokenistic inclusion speaks volumes about the underlying power dynamics at play. When a body tasked with shaping the political and physical future of Gaza includes just a single Palestinian voice at its launch, it unmistakably signals that Palestinians are being positioned as recipients of decisions rather than authors of their own political destiny.
This approach fundamentally contradicts established principles of international law. The right of peoples to self-determination is enshrined in Article 1 of the United Nations Charter and reaffirmed in multiple international covenants. These instruments recognize that all peoples have the right to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. This right is not contingent on donor conferences, geopolitical convenience, or reconstruction contracts—it is foundational. Any peace initiative that fails to center this fundamental principle is destined to fail, regardless of the financial resources poured into it.
Contradictions and Hypocrisies: Accountability Versus Impunity
The contradictions inherent in this initiative extend far beyond representation issues. The United States positions itself as a leader of a new peace architecture while simultaneously sanctioning International Criminal Court officials. It has singled out Francesca Paola Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, for pursuing investigations into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity involving Israel. Meanwhile, the U.S. has repeatedly voted against ceasefire resolutions at the Security Council, blocking or diluting calls for an immediate halt to hostilities.
This pattern reveals a troubling hypocrisy: one cannot credibly champion peace while penalizing accountability mechanisms and resisting ceasefire efforts within established multilateral forums. Accountability is not a barrier to peace—it is its essential foundation. Without meaningful mechanisms to address violations and ensure justice, any reconstruction effort becomes merely a superficial covering over deep-seated grievances that will inevitably resurface.
Escalating Realities: Settlements and Theological Justifications
This initiative unfolds against a backdrop of escalating realities that further complicate the peace landscape. On December 21, 2025, Israel’s Cabinet approved a proposal for 19 new Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, accelerating expansion in territory widely recognized under international law as occupied. Such moves systematically erode the viability of a contiguous Palestinian state and undermine the framework of a negotiated two-state solution.
Political rhetoric has intensified these concerns. In a recent interview with right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee responded to a question about biblical claims to land in the region by stating, “It would be fine if they took it all,” before offering subsequent clarifications. Regardless of later qualifications, invoking expansive theological claims in discussions of modern territorial disputes dangerously blurs the line between religious narrative and international law. Peace processes cannot rest on scriptural entitlement—they must be grounded in legal principles and negotiated agreements that respect the rights and aspirations of all parties involved.
The Futility of Reconstruction Without Political Transformation
The people of Gaza and Palestinians more broadly do not need a rebranded administrative mechanism that promises redevelopment without political agency. Such an approach merely manages symptoms while leaving the underlying political disease untouched. As much as Netanyahu has attempted over the years to fragment or sideline Palestinian political institutions, any serious discussion about Gaza cannot be divorced from the broader question of Palestinian statehood and the systematic marginalization of the Palestinian Authority.
Reconstruction without a credible political horizon only deepens instability. Ignoring statehood does not neutralize it as an issue; it ensures that the conflict remains unresolved. The complex post-conflict transitions in places like Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and South Sudan have proven that reconstruction and political transformation are profoundly complicated processes that demand legitimacy, patience, and sustained engagement. In each of these cases, externally driven frameworks that moved faster than political consensus or sidelined local ownership produced fragile institutions and enduring instability.
Conclusion: Toward Authentic Peacebuilding
Until the elements of genuine Palestinian agency, accountability, and respect for international law become central to the process, any so-called board of peace risks becoming a structure that manages instability rather than resolving it. Any initiative that avoids serious negotiations toward two viable states rooted in human rights, defined borders, equitable land arrangements, and mutual security is not peacebuilding but rather a bandage over a festering wound.
The Global South, particularly nations like India and China that understand the destructive legacy of colonialism, must recognize this initiative for what it is: another attempt by Western powers to impose their geopolitical will under the guise of humanitarian assistance. We have seen this pattern before—the division of territories without regard for indigenous populations, the creation of artificial borders that serve imperial interests, and the systematic denial of self-determination to peoples deemed inconvenient to great power ambitions.
True peace cannot be engineered in Washington conference rooms while ignoring the voices of those most affected by conflict. It cannot be achieved through financial pledges that come with political strings attached. And it certainly cannot flourish under frameworks that privilege the interests of powerful nations over the fundamental rights of oppressed peoples. The path to genuine peace in Palestine requires dismantling the structures of domination and building anew from the foundation of justice, equality, and self-determination—principles that this Board of Peace manifestly fails to uphold.