The inaugural session of President Trump’s newly established Board of Peace is scheduled for Thursday. Officials from the administration and participating nations are characterizing the event as a move to advance the subsequent stage of Gaza’s ceasefire and rebuilding process, not as an occasion expected to yield an instant resolution.
Washington will host the first meeting, with at least 20 countries anticipated to attend. President Trump is expected to lead talks concerning a multi-billion-dollar reconstruction plan, the coordination of humanitarian aid, and the introduction of an international force to stabilize the region.
The board’s initial membership, which includes nations such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Bahrain, Pakistan, Turkey, Israel, Hungary, Morocco, Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Argentina, Paraguay, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, and Vietnam, was revealed last month at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
In a Sunday social media post announcing the commitments, Trump stated that initiative members had already pledged funds for Gaza’s reconstruction and would contribute personnel to international stabilization and policing operations. He wrote, “The Board of Peace will prove to be the most consequential international body in history, and it is my honor to serve as its Chairman.”
Specific contributions are emerging, with Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani announcing a program to train a future Gaza police force. Indonesia has pledged thousands of soldiers for a potential international stabilization mission slated for deployment later this year.
As a founding member, the United Arab Emirates stated its intention to maintain its humanitarian involvement in Gaza. A statement from the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted its role as a founding participant in the Board of Peace and on the Gaza Executive Board, saying, “The UAE remains committed to scaling up its efforts to support Palestinians in Gaza and to advancing a durable peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”
While Gulf and regional partners indicate a readiness to finance humanitarian requirements, analysts note that substantial reconstruction funding remains conditional on security developments in the territory.
Experts suggest the meeting’s importance will be determined not by major announcements, but by whether attendees can reach consensus on the fundamental, unresolved issue defining Gaza’s future: the disarmament of Hamas.
Ghaith al-Omari, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, contends the gathering’s credibility rests on participants uniting around a definitive stance on disarmament. “Unless there is going to be a joint statement coming out of it that clearly says Hamas has to disarm — to me the meeting would be a failure,” he stated, explaining it would demonstrate that “the U.S. cannot get everyone on the same page.”
Funding is also predicted to be a central topic, though diplomats and analysts warn that promises may not rapidly convert into extensive rebuilding.
“We’re going to see pledges,” al-Omari remarked, “with a footnote that a pledge does not always translate to deliverables.” He emphasized the need to observe which nations pledge money and whether funds are designated for humanitarian relief, stabilization, or long-term reconstruction.
John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), similarly warned that early financial commitments are improbable to lead to swift, large-scale reconstruction. “I can’t imagine that much of that initial pledge or any of it is going to actual long-term or even medium-term reconstruction of Gaza. Just too many parties won’t support it, pending actual progress on the core question of disarmament and demilitarization of Hamas,” he said.
Hannah further noted the immense scale of the financing challenge. “It’s been a major outstanding question: How are you going to fund this tremendous bill that is going to come due over the course of the next several years?” he asked. “I’ve been watching this now for 35 years, and if I had $100 for every time a major Arab country pledged support for the Palestinians but not delivered, I’d be a relatively wealthy man.”
The initiative has also brought to light political strains related to Israel’s involvement, especially with Turkey and Qatar participating.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formally entered the framework last week by signing the agreement during a meeting with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. This move came despite previous Israeli reservations about Ankara and Doha assuming key roles in Gaza’s future.
Hannah suggested Netanyahu’s choice was based on strategic considerations linked to Washington. “I think the prime minister doesn’t want to anger the president. He’s prioritizing his really good strategic relationship with Trump over this tactical difference over Turkey and Qatar,” he said. “The prime minister is just making a basic calculation of where his interests lie here and trying to balance these competing factors.”
The initiative has generated apprehension among European allies beyond the Gaza context, with many choosing not to join the board.
European officials have expressed that the group’s charter presents legal and institutional issues and could clash with the original U.N. framework, which imagined a mechanism focused solely on Gaza.
At the Munich Security Conference, European leaders contended that the Board of Peace’s mandate seems to depart from the U.N. Security Council resolution that originally endorsed a body specific to Gaza.
European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas noted the resolution foresaw a time-bound structure directly linked to Gaza and the U.N., provisions absent from the board’s current charter. “The U.N. Security Council resolution provided for a Board of Peace for Gaza… it provided for it to be limited in time until 2027… and referred to Gaza, whereas the statute of the Board of Peace makes no reference to any of these things,” she said. “So I think there is a Security Council resolution but the Board of Peace does not reflect it.”
Responding to these concerns, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz criticized what he called undue worry over the initiative. He maintained the situation in Gaza was untenable and denounced what he termed “hand-wringing” about the Board of Peace, asserting the cycle of conflict with Hamas in power must end.
Analysts believe that, despite European discomfort, the Board of Peace is not expected to supplant the U.N. system.
Al-Omari rejected the notion that the initiative presents a significant institutional threat, stating that major global powers continue to be heavily committed to the current multilateral framework.
Hannah concurred, indicating the administration likely sees Thursday’s meeting mainly as a step forward rather than a pivotal turning point. “The way the administration is looking at this is just another sign of continued progress and momentum, rather than any kind of major breakthrough,” he concluded.