Trump’s Board of Peace is emerging as more than a mechanism for governing post-war Gaza. Its expanding ambitions raise the prospect of a parallel system in which powerful states decide which institutions survive, who receives legitimacy and whose rules apply. Part two of a two-part analysis.
On 21 January 2026, the New York Times reported that Trump wrote in invitation letters to world leaders that the Board of Peace would begin “a bold new approach to resolving global conflict”, without limiting its mandate to Gaza, as in the draft charter.
Trump also said: “I wish the United Nations could do more. I wish we didn’t need a Board of Peace,” and when asked whether he wanted the board to replace the United Nations, he answered that it “might”.
These statements open the door to viewing the board as more than simply a mechanism for managing the transitional phase in Gaza. Looking at its composition, the way crises are managed through it and Trump’s authority within it suggests its role may extend beyond Gaza to a broader role in managing international crises and conflicts.
The board includes Benjamin Netanyahu, against whom the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant over war crimes. This raises a fundamental question about the nature of the standards on which a body called the ‘Board of Peace’ relies in determining membership and accountability.
It also includes figures who openly support Israel, such as Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner and Tony Blair, in addition to other figures with ties to Israel and figures who contribute to funding pro-Israel lobbying organisations in the United States. This composition cannot be separated from the powers the board grants itself or from the nature of the roles it is expected to play in the post-war phase, ranging from humanitarian, social and economic roles to political roles and the management of reconstruction and the transitional phase.
The question is no longer only who will govern Gaza after the war, but who will determine the form of the administration governing it, and who will have the power to determine which institutions remain and which are replaced.
From this perspective, targeting UNRWA and putting pressure on other international institutions can be understood as part of a broader struggle over the system that will govern the next phase. UNRWA represents one of the symbols and institutions linked to the refugee issue, while the ICC represents one of the institutions capable of pursuing legal accountability. The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, has also faced severe financial sanctions, in addition to threats and blackmail targeting her, her husband and her children.
At the same time, the Board of Peace has emerged as a new arrangement with an expanding role in managing political, humanitarian and economic files related to Gaza and the post-war period. This goes beyond the fate of UNRWA. We are facing an attempt to rebuild a broader trajectory for reshaping the international institutions that have dealt with the Palestinian cause for decades.
Here, the Board of Peace shifts from being merely a tool for managing a defined transitional phase into a parallel entity to existing institutions, with growing capacity to determine the shape of the political, economic and humanitarian system in societies emerging from wars.
The international community is facing a dangerous precedent. If the board succeeds in imposing its vision, this would effectively mark the end of the traditional model of international law and human rights and replace it with a system closer to a political ‘law of the jungle’, in which major powers establish special councils to grant legitimacy to occupation and protect war criminals from any legal or moral accountability.
The question then is not only who will rebuild Gaza, but who will determine the rules of the phase that follows, who has the right to determine its future, and whether existing international institutions will remain part of that future or will gradually be replaced by new arrangements led by the most powerful actors.
This raises further concerns about whether the board could become a precedent for how major powers determine the future of societies emerging from wars. Could this create a new form of colonialism, particularly if such a model becomes capable of determining which institutions operate within these societies, which entities receive legitimacy and support, and which political and economic paths they will follow?
Read Part One of this two-part analysis
Refaat Ibrahim
Refaat Ibrahim is a Palestinian writer from Gaza and the founder of The Resistant Palestinian Pens ( https://resistantpens.org/ ). A graduate in English Language and Literature from the Islamic University, he writes about political, social, and cultural issues in Palestine. Through his work, he amplifies Palestinian voices under occupation, believing writing is a bridge between truth and people’s hearts and minds.