The Hidden Truth Behind Gaza's Board of Peace
What seems like a postwar reconstruction effort may actually be a preview of a new global power structure.
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
At first glance, Gaza might seem like it should be one of the most uninteresting places on Earth.
It is a narrow strip of land, barely 40 kilometers (25 miles) long, relatively underdeveloped, with limited resources and an uninspiring population. It doesn’t look like a place that should capture global attention.
Yet, in spite of all this, Gaza looms large in world politics, shaping alliances, testing international influence, drawing the focus of regional and global powers alike.
And it’s now home to the so-called “Board of Peace,” a United States–backed initiative for Gaza’s postwar reconstruction, which features a broad mandate, potentially extending its influence beyond Gaza itself. Membership comes at a steep price — reportedly $1 billion per member country — demonstrating that control over Gaza is seen as a form of strategic leverage.
Geographically, Gaza sits at a crossroads of Israel, Egypt, and the wider Middle East, serving both as a buffer and a flashpoint. Politically, it has been governed by Hamas since 2007. Hamas is, of course, linked ideologically to the Muslim Brotherhood and aligned, directly or indirectly, with countries such as Turkey, Qatar, and Iran. This makes Gaza a platform for proxy politics, where external powers can assert influence without direct confrontation.
Israel views Gaza as central to its security, a zone it must control or monitor to prevent hostile actors from gaining a foothold. Regional powers, meanwhile, see involvement as a way to expand influence, test alliances, and shape narratives of legitimacy.
Recent events illustrate these tensions. This week, senior Israeli ministers blocked the reopening of the Rafah Crossing with Egypt, resisting U.S. pressure to implement parts of a 20-point peace plan. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has opposed Turkish and Qatari officials sitting on the Gaza Executive Board, fearing their support for Hamas would compromise Israeli security. From the U.S. perspective, their inclusion is part of a multilateral effort to stabilize the Strip — an effort that simultaneously enhances American diplomatic leverage.
This isn’t about troops or humanitarian aid alone. It is about regional influence, geopolitical leverage, and even economic opportunities. Gaza sits atop potential energy corridors, including natural gas pipelines that could link Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. Reconstruction and oversight of Gaza offer control over trade routes, investment flows, and strategic partnerships, making the Strip a microcosm of global economic and political power.
For example, as part of Saudi-Israeli normalization, there has been talk of a $27-billion rail expansion connecting Israel’s outlying areas to metropolitan Tel Aviv, with potential future links to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and even India. Though the idea has been floated for years, Netanyahu formally announced it in July 2023, immediately following a visit by top American officials to Saudi Arabia to advance the prospect of formal relations between the two nations.
On the surface, a railway across borders might seem purely infrastructural, but it is far more strategic. Railways facilitate not just passenger transport but the movement of materials, chemicals, and the construction of cross-border energy pipelines alongside or beneath them.
India initially explored a route through Iran’s Chabahar Port into Afghanistan and then via the International North-South Transport Corridor to Central Asia, Russia, and Europe.
But geopolitical complications with Iran forced India to look elsewhere. The solution emerged in the form of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, a memorandum signed in September 2023 at the G20 summit by India, the European Union, Germany, Italy, France, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. This corridor is designed to bypass traditional chokepoints, create alternative trade routes, and tie together energy, transport, and strategic influence — a real-world example of how infrastructure, economics, and geopolitics are inseparable.
And just last month, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis and Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides visited Israel to meet with Netanyahu, likely to discuss the aforementioned geopolitical options. They also took the opportunity to send a thinly veiled message to Turkey, with Netanyahu saying: “those who fantasize they can reestablish their empires and their dominion over our lands” should “forget it.”
At the same time, Gaza offers soft power: The nations or organizations seen as “restoring peace” gain narrative authority and diplomatic legitimacy across the region and the world.
Hence, the Board of Peace itself may be more than just Gaza-focused; it could very well provide a pilot program or a preview of a reimagined United Nations — one where influence is increasingly transactional, operational authority is tied to strategic stakes, and governance is concentrated among a narrower set of actors.
Gaza could be the test case for a new model in which the UN and its affiliates function less as neutral arbiters and more as instruments of enforceable global governance. How the world navigates Gaza will signal whether international norms evolve toward accountability and strategic alignment or continue to operate through symbolic, often ineffective, diplomacy.
Eight prominent Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates jointly announced their decisions to join the Board of Peace on Wednesday. Israel, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Morocco, and Vietnam are among those who have already accepted.
Perhaps the most surprising addition is Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom Trump commented on, saying: “I have some controversial people on it, but these are people who get the job done. These are people who have tremendous influence. We want all nations where people have control and power. If I put all babies on the Board, there wouldn’t be very much. So he was invited. He’s accepted.”
And then Trump revealed the hidden truth: The board is “going to get a lot of work done that the United Nations should have done.” When asked by a reporter on Tuesday if the board would replace the UN, Trump said: “It might.”
Cracks are already forming around the Board of Peace’s broader ambitions. While the initiative is framed around Gaza, its scope appears to extend far beyond it — and not everyone is eager to sign on. Several Western European governments have opted out or are sitting on the sidelines. Norway and Sweden have declined their invitations outright, following France’s earlier refusal, even as roughly 50 to 60 countries were asked to participate.
If Gaza is the proving ground, then the Board of Peace is the prototype. It represents a shift away from the UN’s self-image as a neutral forum for moral consensus and toward something far more transactional, power-aware, and outcome-driven. In this model, legitimacy is no longer derived from speeches, resolutions, or symbolic votes, but from the ability to actually enforce decisions and shape reality on the ground. Whether one finds that uncomfortable or refreshing likely depends on how much faith one still has in the UN as it exists today.
That faith has been eroding for decades. The UN was designed for a post–World War II world that no longer exists — one dominated by clear victors, relatively stable blocs, and an assumption that shared norms could restrain bad actors. Today’s world is multipolar, fractured, and defined by states and non-state actors who openly ignore UN resolutions with little consequence. Gaza itself is a case study in this failure: Years of declarations, emergency sessions, and condemnations have produced enormous paperwork and minimal results.
The growing composition of the Board of Peace reflects this new realism. The goal is not ideological purity or geographic balance; it is influence, control, and leverage. This logic explains why even Putin was invited, and why he accepted — revealing a truth many diplomats prefer not to say out loud: The Board of Peace is being asked to do what the United Nations should have done long ago. When Trump openly suggested that the board “might” replace the UN, it sounded provocative, but it also sounded honest. Institutions, like nations, have shelf lives. When they stop producing outcomes and exist primarily to preserve process, they invite alternatives.
The resistance from parts of Western Europe underscores this divide, less a principled stand than a reflection of institutional loyalty. These countries are deeply invested, politically and philosophically, in the existing UN framework. Many of them are also grappling with internal instability (rising social fragmentation, identity crises, and mounting political polarization) which makes attachment to familiar international institutions understandable. When domestic cohesion is fraying, the instinct is not to experiment with new global orders, but to cling to structures that promise continuity, predictability, and moral legitimacy, even if those structures have long since stopped delivering results.
A replacement for the UN would not be without risk. Concentrating power, prioritizing influence, and sidelining consensus can lead to abuse. But clinging to an institution whose effectiveness has long expired carries its own dangers.
Gaza may ultimately mark the beginning of a new chapter in international relations, one that accepts an uncomfortable reality: Peace is not maintained by declarations, but by power aligned with responsibility.
Starting from what we already know .. the UN is a waste of space. Politically corrupt and inept.
Only yesterday President Sissi said .. ‘Palestinian cause remains the foremost priority in the Middle East, describing it as the cornerstone of regional stability and a prerequisite for a just and comprehensive peace’. What a load of nonsense .. Egypt’s border is firmly shut to the people of gaza, and Egypt’s dictator overthrew elected Morsi and banned the Muslim Brotherhood. The Arab world has never tried to help the so called palestinian people.
The Arab world, with Turkey and Iran, are nothing but a pack of duplicitous muslim states with their own issues of secular vs islamism, sunni vs shia, and as history shows, are far from trustworthy. Trump’s Board of Peace is wishful thinking.
Jordan is the country that was created from 78% of what was the British Mandated part of the 500+ year old Ottoman empire, and is the ‘second state’ of any two state solution. The so called Hashemite kingdom is a British creation, and its people are majority palestinian. Jordan created the West Bank when it occupied the land from 1948 to 1967, during which time there was no world notion of a state called palestine .. that only happened after Israel took back what should be known as Judea and Samaria, which is part of Israel. The Board of Peace should use their vast billions in cash to move the arabs of the west bank to homes in Jordan and other willing Arab countries.
Judea and Samaria belong to Israel, and then the Arab world can carry on their fight amongst themselves and leave the Jewish state to live in peace. Amen.
Fascinating! I don’t think many people have confidence in the UN. It is totally corrupt and ineffective. I think you may be right!