The cease-fire process that began in Gaza on Oct. 10, 2025, entered its second phase on Jan. 14, as announced by Steve Witkoff, U.S. special representative for the Middle East. However, for the second phase of the cease-fire to actually begin, the “Board of Peace,” the International Stabilization Force (ISF), and the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) must have been established according to U.S. President Donald Trump's 20-point Gaza plan as well as U.N. Security Council Resolution 2803. Finally, after the members of the board were announced on Jan. 16, the NCAG met in Cairo on Jan. 18, signed their letters of appointment and officially took office.
On Jan. 22, taking advantage of Trump's presence in Davos for the World Economic Forum, a grand signing ceremony was held with the participation of representatives from countries invited by Trump to join the council, and the BoP was officially established.
Trump’s board is said to be established to manage the processes of setting up a temporary administration, Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, Hamas' disarmament, and the reconstruction of Gaza. Its charter, which contains details about its definition, management and duties, was published in some media outlets on Jan. 19.
As understood from its charter and Trump's statements declaring himself the natural chair of this council, the board does not limit its remit solely to managing and rebuilding Gaza's transition process. Going beyond this, some believe that it, having taken on the mission of resolving conflicts around the world, lays the foundation for a new structure that will replace the United Nations in the coming period.
Therefore, by taking a close look at Trump's board, we will first discuss whether this board can successfully manage what it promised, and then whether it can truly be successful in resolving other global problems, as claimed.
In fact, no agreement or founding document defining the structure, rules, duties and committees of the board has been officially published to date. However, first the Israeli media and then many newspapers published a 13-point document referred to as the board’s charter, and there was no denial from the Trump administration. Therefore, hypothesizing that this published document is indeed its charter, I will point out the controversial articles that stand out in the text.
First of all, Trump appointing himself as chairman of such an international committee is, at the very least, ethically inappropriate. It is unacceptable for him to decide which countries will participate in the board, what decisions will be made, which subcommittees will be established, who will be appointed to them, and who will chair the committee after Trump. As if all this were not enough, giving Trump the authority to approve or veto the decisions made by the committee is also problematic.
Limiting the term of membership to three years and demanding $1 billion from member states to lift this restriction is also incomprehensible. Furthermore, while it has been stated that the board's financial resources will consist of "voluntary donations," there is no indication of how resources will be secured if no donations are made.
Trump, who has long criticized and deemed the U.N. unnecessary, wants to establish a new structure in its place. Seemingly, the basis for this is the BoP established under the pretext of Gaza. However, since the charter grants all authority to Trump and the council can only make decisions if he allows it, this structure is neither democratic nor inclusive. This is unacceptable, as many believe the U.N. Security Council's structure causes global issues, with calls to remove the veto power of permanent members and expand the council.
While there are 193 member countries in the current U.N., Trump's decision to invite only 50-60 countries has led to this structure being perceived as a closed club. The fact that European countries are not participating, due to both their current problems with Trump and their criticism of its structure, undermines the board's inclusiveness and legitimacy. Therefore, while Palestine is criticized for not being able to join the U.N. despite being recognized by 157 member countries and due to the U.S. veto in the Security Council, it seems unlikely that the new structure, which is more selective, will be successful in solving global problems as claimed.
Moreover, Trump's decision to invite Russia and Israel is a major contradiction. This is because Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu are both subject to arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Their inclusion in the board that claims to bring peace and justice to the world not only casts a shadow over its legitimacy but also damages its legal basis. Countries invited to the board should not be represented by individuals against whom judgments have been issued. In fact, a country like Israel, which has committed a major genocide, which is supported by the majority of its citizens, should never have been invited.
One of the most significant weaknesses of the board is that it is still unclear who will be on the high committee that Trump will chair, and the duties and powers of the Executive Board and the Gaza Executive Board. The question of why Trump's inner circle is included in both the Executive Board and the Gaza Executive Board remains. Although there are many Jewish people on these boards, thanks to the U.S. quota, it is unfair that there are no Palestinians. Moreover, it is known that the politicians and bureaucrats appointed to these organizations, as well as some businesspeople and entrepreneurs, are close to Israel and the Jewish lobby, which compromises the impartiality of the board.
It is particularly difficult to understand the insistence on including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is the subject of many allegations and is not well-liked in the region. Blair's role in the invasion of Iraq has not been forgotten, and it seems unlikely that he can contribute anything to the region or the world.
Another controversial name is Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner. It is known that Kushner has a project to rebuild Gaza as an international trade and tourism hub. His presentation at Davos focused solely on his own real estate project rather than the humanitarian and legal dimensions of Gaza. These facts have increased backlash towards Kushner.
However, there are a few positive aspects of the board as well. Its decision to establish the Gaza Executive Board and the NCAG, composed of Palestinian technocrats, to manage the cease-fire and reconstruction in Gaza is a wise choice in terms of representing the people of Gaza. The appointment of representatives from Türkiye, Qatar, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates to the Gaza Executive Board, despite all of Netanyahu's objections, is an important development for the Palestinians. Until now, no representatives from regional countries had been included in the U.S. mediation efforts to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Therefore, the distribution at the table is more balanced this time.
The appointment of a former Bulgarian minister and a former member of the European Parliament, Nikolay Mladenov, as High Representative and the inclusion of former U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Sigrid Kaag on this committee will be beneficial in quickly rebuilding Gaza, given their past experience.
But other than these, the uncertainties and problems remain on the table. It is unclear which countries will be part of the planned ISF and what its mission will be. It is uncertain whether the ISF will only be tasked with disarming Hamas or whether it will also protect the people of Gaza from Israeli military attacks. Israel's objections to the participation of Turkish soldiers in this force also continue. Consequently, there remains the possibility that this force will be formed in accordance with Israel's wishes and, as a result, will fail to ensure the safety of the people of Gaza. Moreover, although there have been no recent statements from the U.S. administration about the evacuation of Gaza, the danger of population displacement under the pretext of "rebuilding" still persists.
All in all, the criticisms that this committee will remain only on paper are not unjustified. All these issues must be clarified as soon as possible. Only if the aforementioned issues are resolved will a smooth transition for Palestinians and the reconstruction of Gaza be possible. What happens in Gaza will be an important test for the board. Otherwise, the developments will lead to the stillbirth of the board.
As for the possibility of it becoming a new structure to replace the U.N., first, Trump will have to relinquish his claim to absolute authority. A more pluralistic and egalitarian structure must be established, and international legal norms must not be disregarded. In other words, it must be proven that this structure was not established solely to save Israel and Netanyahu. Perhaps then the BoP might have a chance of succeeding the U.N.
