Trump’s Board of Peace Set for First Meeting to Advance Gaza Reconstruction

President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace will hold its inaugural meeting in Washington on Thursday, with representatives from at least 20 countries gathering to discuss the next phase of Gaza’s ceasefire implementation and reconstruction efforts.

The meeting, chaired by Trump himself, aims to establish frameworks for multi-billion-dollar reconstruction, coordinate humanitarian assistance, and plan the deployment of an international stabilization force in the region. However, administration officials and participating nations are framing the gathering as a progressive step rather than an event likely to produce immediate breakthroughs.

Trump unveiled the initiative last month at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where founding members including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Bahrain, Pakistan, Turkey, Israel, Hungary, Morocco, and several other nations signed onto the charter.

On Sunday, Trump announced that members had already pledged $5 billion toward rebuilding Gaza and committed personnel to international stabilization efforts. “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,” Trump declared in a social media post.

Some participating nations have already outlined their planned contributions. Italy’s foreign minister Antonio Tajani announced plans to train a future Gaza police force, while Indonesia has committed thousands of troops to a prospective international stabilization mission expected to deploy later this year.

The United Arab Emirates affirmed its ongoing humanitarian commitment to the Palestinian people in Gaza. “The UAE remains committed to scaling up its humanitarian efforts to support Palestinians in Gaza and to advancing a durable peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.

Disarmament: The Critical Challenge

Despite financial pledges and humanitarian commitments, analysts emphasize that Hamas disarmament remains the central unresolved issue that will determine Gaza’s future.

Ghaith al-Omari, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, suggested the meeting’s success hinges on whether participants can align on a clear position regarding Hamas 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 said, arguing it would reveal a fundamental inability to create consensus on this critical issue.

The funding discussions, while important, come with significant caveats. Al-Omari noted that financial pledges often come with unstated conditions and may not translate quickly into tangible reconstruction efforts, urging observers to pay close attention to which countries make commitments and whether funds are designated for immediate humanitarian aid or longer-term rebuilding projects.

John Hannah, senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, expressed similar skepticism about early financial pledges. “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 pointed to historical precedent regarding unfulfilled financial commitments to Palestinian causes: “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.”

Israeli Participation Despite Regional Tensions

The initiative has highlighted complex diplomatic dynamics surrounding Israel’s participation, particularly given the involvement of Turkey and Qatar — nations that have had strained relations with Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formally joined the agreement last week during a meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, placing Israel within the framework despite earlier objections to Ankara and Doha playing central roles in Gaza’s future.

Hannah suggested Netanyahu’s decision reflects strategic priorities regarding the U.S.-Israel relationship. “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 Israel’s interests lie here and trying to balance these competing factors.”

European Allies Express Concerns

The initiative has generated significant skepticism among European allies, many of whom have declined to join the board, citing legal and institutional concerns about its charter.

European officials have questioned whether the Board of Peace’s mandate aligns with the original UN Security Council resolution that initially supported a Gaza-specific body. European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas noted discrepancies between the resolution and the board’s charter, particularly regarding its duration and scope.

“The UN 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.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz pushed back against European hesitation, arguing that maintaining the status quo in Gaza is unsustainable and criticizing what he characterized as excessive “hand-wringing” about the initiative.

Despite these tensions, analysts generally agree that the Board of Peace is unlikely to replace the existing UN system. Major powers remain deeply invested in current multilateral structures, and the administration appears to view Thursday’s meeting as incremental progress rather than a dramatic institutional shift.

“The way the administration is looking at this is just another sign of continued progress and momentum, rather than any kind of major breakthrough,” Hannah concluded.