US-led Peace Board raises concerns over Gaza and Palestinian solutions
Cairo (ANTARA) - The US-led "Board of Peace", proposed as a mechanism for overseeing post-war governance in the Gaza Strip, has raised concerns among regional analysts regarding its structure, mandate and capacity to effectively champion Palestinian rights.
Whilst every genuine effort to resolve the Gaza conflict deserves appreciation, experts worry the board could become a "one-man show" that disregards international law, sidelines Palestinian rights and risks widening global divisions rather than delivering a just resolution.
"One-man show"
The board, which reportedly offers a lifetime leadership position to US President Donald Trump, has been described by experts as a personalised instrument rather than a legitimate international mechanism capable of addressing complex political conflicts.
Analysts argue the initiative is likely designed to reflect Washington's own strategic priorities, using Gaza to advance broader geopolitical, economic and even domestic political interests, rather than serving as a neutral conflict resolution vehicle.
"The board is tied to an individual rather than to the international system," said Maged Botros, a professor of political science at Helwan University in Egypt, adding that this means the board's continuity depends on a single person rather than an institutional framework.
Trump officially launched the "Board of Peace" on 22 January during a charter-signing ceremony at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland. The move has raised concerns that the board could undermine UN authority and damage the existing multilateral peacekeeping framework. Several major global powers and traditional US allies have also opted not to join the board.
"Politically, this is a one-man show," Botros said.
Similarly, Tarek Fahmy, a professor of political science at Cairo University in Egypt, described the board as "Trump's board, not a peace board in the global sense," warning that it lacks institutional legitimacy and is not binding on future US administrations.
Both experts emphasised that such a board cannot replace the UN, "an international organisation founded on a comprehensive charter and collective legitimacy".
Palestinian rights overlooked
Another concern raised by analysts is that the board fails to include Palestinian rights or political representation, raising fears that reconstruction efforts could proceed without addressing the core political issues of the conflict.
Botros stressed that Palestinian rights are rooted in international law, a foundation that the board disregards in favour of "personal initiatives and unpredictable decisions made by a single individual".
This approach means the outcomes achieved will most likely reflect "personal beliefs and the balance of power" rather than the fulfilment of legal rights, he warned.
Fahmy also highlighted that the absence of Palestinian representation on the board fuels scepticism and undermines the initiative's credibility from the outset.
Botros noted that Trump's approach tends to be driven by power considerations rather than legal or moral aspects, arguing that decisions under the US-led board would most likely align with Israeli interests, reflecting Washington's strategic calculations.
Fahmy agreed with that assessment but warned the board could actually deepen regional divisions, potentially destabilising the regional order rather than achieving peace.
"Dividing the world on the principle of 'those who are not with us are against us' will shake global stability, not bring peace," he stressed.
Both experts agreed that the board's effectiveness is further clouded by potential political and financial obstacles within the US, including possible opposition from Congress.
Fahmy stated that the board's role remains unclear, highlighting contradictions between the peace rhetoric of US officials and their provocative actions, which could turn the board into "a merely symbolic body rather than one with real influence".
"If we ask directly whether this will resolve the Gaza conflict in a manner consistent with Palestinian rights, the answer is no," Botros said.
Whilst every genuine effort to resolve the Gaza conflict deserves appreciation, experts worry the board could become a "one-man show" that disregards international law, sidelines Palestinian rights and risks widening global divisions rather than delivering a just resolution.
"One-man show"
The board, which reportedly offers a lifetime leadership position to US President Donald Trump, has been described by experts as a personalised instrument rather than a legitimate international mechanism capable of addressing complex political conflicts.
Analysts argue the initiative is likely designed to reflect Washington's own strategic priorities, using Gaza to advance broader geopolitical, economic and even domestic political interests, rather than serving as a neutral conflict resolution vehicle.
"The board is tied to an individual rather than to the international system," said Maged Botros, a professor of political science at Helwan University in Egypt, adding that this means the board's continuity depends on a single person rather than an institutional framework.
Trump officially launched the "Board of Peace" on 22 January during a charter-signing ceremony at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland. The move has raised concerns that the board could undermine UN authority and damage the existing multilateral peacekeeping framework. Several major global powers and traditional US allies have also opted not to join the board.
"Politically, this is a one-man show," Botros said.
Similarly, Tarek Fahmy, a professor of political science at Cairo University in Egypt, described the board as "Trump's board, not a peace board in the global sense," warning that it lacks institutional legitimacy and is not binding on future US administrations.
Both experts emphasised that such a board cannot replace the UN, "an international organisation founded on a comprehensive charter and collective legitimacy".
Palestinian rights overlooked
Another concern raised by analysts is that the board fails to include Palestinian rights or political representation, raising fears that reconstruction efforts could proceed without addressing the core political issues of the conflict.
Botros stressed that Palestinian rights are rooted in international law, a foundation that the board disregards in favour of "personal initiatives and unpredictable decisions made by a single individual".
This approach means the outcomes achieved will most likely reflect "personal beliefs and the balance of power" rather than the fulfilment of legal rights, he warned.
Fahmy also highlighted that the absence of Palestinian representation on the board fuels scepticism and undermines the initiative's credibility from the outset.
Botros noted that Trump's approach tends to be driven by power considerations rather than legal or moral aspects, arguing that decisions under the US-led board would most likely align with Israeli interests, reflecting Washington's strategic calculations.
Fahmy agreed with that assessment but warned the board could actually deepen regional divisions, potentially destabilising the regional order rather than achieving peace.
"Dividing the world on the principle of 'those who are not with us are against us' will shake global stability, not bring peace," he stressed.
Both experts agreed that the board's effectiveness is further clouded by potential political and financial obstacles within the US, including possible opposition from Congress.
Fahmy stated that the board's role remains unclear, highlighting contradictions between the peace rhetoric of US officials and their provocative actions, which could turn the board into "a merely symbolic body rather than one with real influence".
"If we ask directly whether this will resolve the Gaza conflict in a manner consistent with Palestinian rights, the answer is no," Botros said.