A new US-led body promises to rebuild Gaza and secure Israel, but can peace be engineered without the voice of the governed?<\/p>\n
Unveiled with fanfare in Davos, US President Donald Trump\u2019s newly minted Board of Peace (BoP) is being billed as a game-changer for Gaza and the wider Middle East.\u00a0
\nBacked by 25 states and armed with a formal legal mandate, the body aims to oversee Gaza\u2019s reconstruction, guarantee Israel\u2019s security, and, ultimately, break the deadlock in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.\u00a0
\nReactions to the initiative have been sharply divided. Supporters view the Board of Peace as a pragmatic response to exhaustion after years of war, while skeptics question its legitimacy, mandate, and most notably, the absence of Palestinian political representation.
\nWith Israel directly involved and Palestinians sidelined, doubts persist over whether the initiative can deliver peace rather than simply manage a crisis.
\nTo assess the BoP\u2019s prospects and pitfalls, RT spoke with three experts, from Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and T\u00fcrkiye, asking how the initiative is perceived across the region, how it differs from past US peace efforts, and whether it stands any real chance of reducing violence or reshaping Middle East diplomacy altogether.<\/p>\n
Read more<\/p>\n
The monetary system is broken and gold knows why<\/p>\n
RT: How is Trump\u2019s proposed Board of Peace being viewed in your country\u00a0and the wider region?
\nMohammed Najib, a Ramallah-based analyst and journalist:\u00a0In Palestine,\u00a0Gaza\u00a0and the\u00a0West Bank,\u00a0the\u00a0prevailing\u00a0mood is skepticism, mixed with fatigue and conditional hope. The initiative is widely seen as an external framework that still does not resolve core political questions (sovereignty, governance legitimacy, Israeli withdrawals).\u00a0Any mechanism tied to ceasefire durability, crossings, aid, and reconstruction can bring immediate relief.\u00a0
\nThe\u00a0Gazan people\u00a0raise\u00a0doubts about whether the plan will change conditions on the ground, given\u00a0the\u00a0ongoing insecurity and hardships despite the ceasefire framework.\u00a0
\nIn the wider region,\u00a0reactions are\u00a0split and transactional. Several\u00a0key regional states have signaled\u00a0their willingness to participate (or to explore participation, such as Jordan)\u00a0in\u00a0managing a post-war Gaza file and preventing regional spillover, while European powers have shown caution, partly due to governance and mandate ambiguity and partly because the body could undermine\u00a0established multilateral structures.\u00a0
\nThe Palestinians believe there are two main obstacles: Israel, which controls the Gaza borders and could obstruct the free entry of reconstruction materials into Gaza, or refuse to withdraw from Gaza; and Hamas, which still has influence over the Gazan people, despite accepting the transfer of authority to the newly formed Palestinian technocratic Administrative Committee, and could apply the Lebanese model, with a civilian government but the real force and power in Hezbollah\u2019s hands.
\nActually, the Palestinians in Gaza believe that Israel will not fully withdraw from Gaza and that it is merely maneuvering and buying time.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Mohammed Najib<\/p>\n
Khaled Batarfi, a professor at Faisal University: Saudi Arabia sees the initiative through a pragmatic and forward-looking lens. The region has been exhausted by cycles of war in Gaza, and any framework that can support a sustainable ceasefire, reconstruction, and humanitarian access is viewed as a potential platform for stability.
\nRiyadh\u2019s position is consistent: if a mechanism, whether American-led or multilateral, can reinforce international law, reduce violence, and help deliver an organized post-war environment in Gaza, then it deserves to be explored.
\nAcross the region, governments are cautious but generally hopeful. There is recognition that the Middle East needs new tools and fresh diplomatic formats capable of breaking long-standing deadlocks, provided that they complement, rather than replace, the UN framework.<\/p>\n
Khaled Batarfi<\/p>\n
G\u00f6khan Batu, an expert on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs based in Ankara:\u00a0Despite economic constraints, T\u00fcrkiye enters this period with enhanced regional influence, strengthened by defense investments, advanced technology, and an active diplomatic posture. Over the past five years, Ankara has largely secured its objectives in regional contests without provoking major crises, making cooperation with T\u00fcrkiye increasingly attractive for many actors.
\nPeace-building and mediation have long been central to Turkish foreign policy, alongside President Erdogan\u2019s critique of the UN Security Council, encapsulated in the phrase \u201cThe world is bigger than five.\u201d In this sense, the BoP aligns with long-standing Turkish concerns about the inadequacy of the current global order.
\nHowever, Ankara remains cautious. Provisions granting extensive authority to the Chairman and certain decision-making mechanisms diverge from T\u00fcrkiye\u2019s perspective. Given ongoing uncertainties and the likelihood of revisions, T\u00fcrkiye is expected to continue observing developments rather than taking a definitive stance.<\/p>\n
G\u00f6khan Batu<\/p>\n
RT: Does this plan represent a genuine diplomatic effort, or is it symbolic or political in nature?
\nNajib:\u00a0It is\u00a0diplomacy in form, but\u00a0political signaling\u00a0in structure; diplomacy explicitly\u00a0linked to sustaining the Gaza ceasefire and to post-war stabilization\u00a0and reconstruction discussions, with prominent international figures and states invited to participate.\u00a0
\nPolitical signaling in structure\u00a0because\u00a0reporting indicates major uncertainties about the mandate, decision-making\u00a0processes, and legitimacy,\u00a0alongside controversial features\u00a0such as\u00a0a proposed\u00a0$1 billion \u201cbuy-in\u201d for permanent membership\u00a0and concerns raised by diplomats and\u00a0allies that it may rival or bypass the UN system rather than strengthen it.\u00a0
\nEven wire coverage notes\u00a0that\u00a0the initiative was unveiled with\u00a0limited operational detail\u00a0at launch,\u00a0another reason many observers treat it as partly symbolic until\u00a0the\u00a0implementation rules are clear.\u00a0
\nAlso, the Palestinians believe that some countries joined the Board of Peace not because they are persuaded\u00a0by it, but to avoid the consequences of angering Trump\u00a0by rejecting it.<\/p>\n
Read more<\/p>\n
Is it time to START worrying? Nuclear restraint is about to fade without a fight<\/p>\n
Gaza has now come under US CENTCOM control, so the Palestinians see that they are heading towards a foreign mandate.
\nBatarfi: From a Saudi perspective, intentions matter less than outcomes. If the Board of Peace contributes to stopping the war, enabling aid, rebuilding Gaza, and creating conditions for a political horizon, then it becomes a practical diplomatic tool.
\nThe structure may carry symbolic or political elements, but what matters to Riyadh is whether the body can deliver tangible results: stability on the ground, accountability, and a more predictable environment for civilians.
\nIn that sense, the plan has the potential to move beyond symbolism, if it operates in partnership with regional actors and in line with the UN-approved Gaza plan.
\nBatu:\u00a0The plan reflects a broader shift in US policy under Trump\u2019s second term, where international institutions, especially the UN, are increasingly portrayed as liabilities rather than assets. The US withdrawal of funding from UN bodies and debates within NATO point to a serious challenge to the post\u2013World War II international order and signal a painful transition phase.
\nInitially framed as a Gaza-focused mechanism, the Board of Peace has rapidly expanded in scope toward the broader Middle East, and potentially beyond. Recent US positions, such as openly discussing the acquisition of Greenland, further undermine the UN system and challenge the authority of the Security Council.
\nThe BoP\u2019s structure suggests an alternative, multi-country model to the UN Security Council, while also functioning as a manifesto of \u201cburden-sharing\u201d and strategic contraction. Its charter implicitly criticizes existing institutions and signals a US willingness to move beyond them. While it is premature to assess whether it could replace the Security Council, its political and symbolic significance should not be underestimated. Membership may bring prestige, but it also entails serious responsibilities, requiring careful assessment by participating states.<\/p>\n
US President Donald Trump signs for the Gaza Peace Council during the 56th World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 22, 2026.<\/p>\n
\u00a9\u00a0 Harun Ozalp \/ Anadolu via Getty Images <\/p>\n
RT: How does it differ from previous US-led peace initiatives?
\nNajib: Past efforts,\u00a0such as\u00a0the\u00a0Roadmap 2003\u00a0and\u00a0Annapolis 2007,\u00a0were structured around negotiated steps and obligations by the parties, often embedded in established multilateral formats\u00a0(the\u00a0Quartet,\u00a0UN references).\u00a0The Roadmap was explicitly \u201cperformance-based,\u201d\u00a0with phases and benchmarks.\u00a0
\nCrisis governance focus (Gaza administration and reconstruction) vs. final-status resolution: the\u00a0current Board of Peace is first presented as a mechanism to\u00a0oversee\u00a0the durability\u00a0of the ceasefire\u00a0and Gaza\u2019s post-war management and reconstruction, with \u201cpeace\u201d framed as an outcome of stabilization and investment\u00a0rather than\u00a0as\u00a0a classic final-status negotiation track.\u00a0
\nA recurring Trump-era pattern: asymmetry in representation and \u201cdeal\u201d framing. The\u00a02020 Trump plan (\u201cPeace to Prosperity\u201d) has been criticized for excluding Palestinians from the unveiling and\u00a0for\u00a0being perceived as heavily shaped\u00a0by\u00a0Israeli preferences. Analysts note echoes of that dynamic when Palestinians argue that governance arrangements are being designed around them rather than with them.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Read more<\/p>\n
\u2018People do not feel truly safe\u2019: Gaza\u2019s nightmare is far from over<\/p>\n
Batarfi: Three differences stand out. The first one is regional integration:\u00a0The initiative brings Arab and Islamic states into the operational management of Gaza\u2019s recovery. This contrasts with earlier US efforts, where regional actors played a supporting role rather than a central one.\u00a0
\nThe second one is the focus on post-war governance:\u00a0Instead of offering a final-status solution upfront, the Board focuses on stabilizing Gaza, coordinating reconstruction, and managing a transitional phase, areas where practical cooperation is urgently needed.
\nAnd, lastly, the concept of multilateralism, not bilateralism: Unlike initiatives centered on Israeli-Palestinian talks alone, this framework incorporates multiple states, donors, and security actors in an organized structure. This wider coalition could make implementation more resilient.
\nBatu:\u00a0Starting with the 20-Point Plan, this initiative is among the most clearly defined frameworks since the Oslo process. Unlike past approaches based on vague declarations, it reflects an acknowledgment that such methods have failed to advance peace. However, the process remains heavily dependent on Trump\u2019s insistence on continuity and pressure on Netanyahu.
\nHistorically, the US either tolerated or supported a shift in the balance in Israel\u2019s favor, particularly during Trump\u2019s first term. In contrast, the BoP signals a relatively more balanced approach, shaped by post\u2013October 7 realities that have also affected US interests and regional perceptions.
\nWhile multiple actors, including T\u00fcrkiye, Pakistan, and Qatar, may influence developments in Gaza, the US remains the key actor capable of exerting decisive pressure on Israel, a fact underscored by Netanyahu\u2019s visible discomfort with US leverage.<\/p>\n
US President Donald Trump signs for the Gaza Peace Council during the 56th World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 22, 2026.<\/p>\n
\u00a9\u00a0 Harun Ozalp \/ Anadolu via Getty Images <\/p>\n
RT: Given the realities on the ground, how effective can this Board realistically be?
\nNajib:\u00a0A\u00a0realistic\u00a0ceiling\u00a0can help\u00a0manage\u00a0a fragile ceasefire and coordinate reconstruction-related\u00a0diplomacy\u00a0if\u00a0key enforcement and access issues move in the right direction.
\nHard constraints reported on the ground\u00a0include ongoing incidents, contested lines of control, and Israeli actions that Palestinians and others say contradict ceasefire maps,\u00a0dynamics that undermine trust and complicate any stabilization mechanism.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Read more<\/p>\n
Blood, soil, and betrayal: How British law carved up a whole country<\/p>\n
So the board\u2019s effectiveness depends less on its \u201cbrand\u201d and more on\u00a0its\u00a0ability\u00a0to\u00a0produce\u00a0credible\u00a0security arrangements\u00a0(deconfliction, rules, monitoring),\u00a0reliable\u00a0access and logistics\u00a0(crossings, aid flows),and enforceable\u00a0sequencing\u00a0(withdrawals, governance transition, demilitarization terms).\u00a0
\nBatarfi: The Board can be effective if it stays anchored in three principles that Saudi Arabia consistently emphasizes: An immediate and sustained ceasefire leading to reduced violence and the protection of civilians, serious investment in reconstruction and restoring basic services (with transparent and accountable mechanisms), and\u00a0a coordinated security environment that prevents a power vacuum and avoids any unilateral Israeli control over Gaza.
\nIf these pillars are honored, the Board could help stabilize Gaza, prevent renewed escalation, and create a more coherent environment for future political negotiations.
\nBatu:\u00a0As long as Trump maintains his insistence, the initiative will continue in some form. Without US pressure, Israel would not have agreed to a ceasefire or to advancing to the second phase of the 20-Point Plan. Israel\u2019s original aim was to reshape Gaza through territorial confinement and buffer zones, creating a new long-term status quo.
\nHowever, broader strategic calculations, including US interests, reinforced Trump\u2019s determination to proceed. For the Board of Peace to succeed, stability in Gaza must be sustained, as Gaza will serve as its primary test case. If stability collapses, the board itself will inevitably fail.<\/p>\n
US President Donald Trump presents the ‘Board of Peace’ onstage at the World Economic Forum (WEF) on January 22, 2026 in Davos, Switzerland.<\/p>\n
\u00a9\u00a0 Chip Somodevilla \/ Getty Images <\/p>\n
RT: Why are Palestinian representatives not included while Benjamin Netanyahu is? Can it work without the Palestinians?
\nNajib:\u00a0Why is Netanyahu included? Well,\u00a0Israel is a decisive on-the-ground military and political actor in Gaza and the West Bank, and Israeli consent is\u00a0required\u00a0for any security, crossing, or\u00a0reconstruction pathway. This gives Netanyahu structural leverage in any externally designed mechanism.\u00a0
\nAs for the Palestinians:\u00a0reporting across\u00a0the board has emphasized\u00a0technocratic Palestinian administration and external oversight structures rather than formal political representation at the top table, an approach intended to avoid internal Palestinian fragmentation (Palestinian Authority\u00a0vs Hamas vs factions), but it also produces a legitimacy deficit.\u00a0
\nThe Palestinians are concerned that there is no Palestinian representative on the Board of Peace, while there is an Israeli businessman, Yakir Gabay, and the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the\u00a0PA is excluded.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Read more<\/p>\n
The sheep that bites: How Finland hides aggression behind victimhood<\/p>\n
The PA had asked a European Country to join the CMCC in Kiryat Gat, as a senior PA security official confirmed on Thursday.\u00a0
\nBatarfi: Saudi Arabia\u2019s position is clear: no peace initiative can succeed without meaningful Palestinian participation. Their absence at this stage reflects political complexities, internal divisions, and sensitivities around representation, but it cannot be permanent.
\nFor the board to function credibly, Palestinian voices must become integral to its decisions, whether through a reformed Palestinian Authority, a technocratic administration, or a unified national mandate supported by elections.
\nNetanyahu\u2019s presence is explained by the reality that Israel is a direct actor in the conflict. But long-term success depends on giving Palestinians equal representation in shaping Gaza\u2019s future.
\nBatu:\u00a0Hamas has already agreed to relinquish control of Gaza once conditions are met, yet both Hamas and Islamic Jihad view the BoP as a mandate-based arrangement with serious implementation risks. Palestinians, particularly since the return of the hostages, have been pushed into an almost entirely passive role in negotiations.
\nThis dynamic mirrors earlier criticisms of UN Security Council Resolution 2803, which framed Palestinian self-determination and statehood as conditional outcomes rather than established rights, while avoiding reference to key resolutions such as 242 and 338. Israel has also made clear its refusal to work with either Gaza-based groups or the Palestinian Authority.
\nIn practical terms, the collapse of the process would likely mean a return to war, despite Gaza\u2019s unresolved humanitarian catastrophe. Excluding Palestinians thus carries significant political and moral costs.<\/p>\n
US President Donald Trump greets Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he arrives at the White House in Washington, DC.<\/p>\n
\u00a9\u00a0 Win McNamee \/ Getty Images <\/p>\n
RT: What message does Palestinian exclusion send to the region and to Palestinians themselves?
\nNajib:\u00a0To many Palestinians, exclusion signals that\u00a0their future is being negotiated as a\u00a0security\u00a0management file, not\u00a0as\u00a0a political\u00a0question\u00a0of self-determination,\u00a0and that \u201cgovernance\u201d is being substituted for \u201crepresentation.\u201d\u00a0
\nRegionally, it reinforces a familiar pattern;\u00a0Arab and Muslim states\u00a0(Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, T\u00fcrkiye)\u00a0may engage for\u00a0containment and humanitarian necessity, but the political credibility of the project is\u00a0undermined if Palestinians are perceived as absent from the decision-making,\u00a0especially when the initiative is marketed as \u201cpeace.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Read more<\/p>\n
\u2018We are breathing smog to survive\u2019: Delhi\u2019s dirty air is killing the city\u2019s invisible workforce<\/p>\n
Batarfi: The absence of Palestinians risks sending the wrong message – that their role is secondary in a conflict that directly affects their people. Saudi Arabia, however, has been very consistent: Palestinians must be partners, not spectators.
\nRiyadh stresses in every forum, from the UN to bilateral channels, that no arrangement is legitimate unless it reflects Palestinian rights, aspirations, and political agency.
\nThe optimistic reading is that this is an initial configuration, not the final structure. The true test of the board will be how quickly and seriously it brings Palestinians into the core decision-making processes.
\nBatu:\u00a0As noted earlier, Palestinian exclusion reinforces their passive position in the process. While not justifiable, sidelining Palestinians may be seen as a way to keep Israel engaged. In this context, the involvement of T\u00fcrkiye and Qatar may serve as partial compensation for the lack of direct Palestinian representation.<\/p>\n
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands as they pose for photos before a meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia.<\/p>\n
\u00a9\u00a0Sputnik \/ Sergey Bobylev <\/p>\n
RT: Is there a realistic pathway for this effort to reduce violence or even end the conflict? What conditions must change for lasting peace?
\nNajib:\u00a0Reducing violence\u00a0\u2013\u00a0there is a plausible pathway\u00a0if the board or any mechanism can lock in\u00a0sustained ceasefire compliance,\u00a0predictable humanitarian access,\u00a0economic stabilization,\u00a0and credible security governance that reduce incentives for renewed fighting.\u00a0
\nEnding the conflict\u00a0is\u00a0far harder, as\u00a0lasting peace would require at least four conditions: legitimate Palestinian political representation\u00a0in any binding process (not only\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0technocratic administration); a defined\u00a0end-state horizon\u00a0(rights, sovereignty, borders,\u00a0security arrangements,\u00a0whatever the agreed model); enforceability\u00a0\u2013 monitoring and consequences for breaches,\u00a0particularly on control lines, access, and\u00a0the\u00a0protection of civilians; and regional and international alignment on\u00a0financing, governance and\u00a0security sequencing\u00a0to ensure that reconstruction is not divorced from political legitimacy.<\/p>\n
Read more<\/p>\n
They don\u2019t care if you die: How Iran\u2019s protests became a bargaining chip for oil and power<\/p>\n
In short,\u00a0the Board of Peace can potentially\u00a0freeze escalation and manage recovery, but without Palestinian political inclusion and an enforceable political horizon, it is more likely to\u00a0operate\u00a0as\u00a0crisis management\u00a0than\u00a0as\u00a0conflict resolution.\u00a0
\nBatarfi: It can succeed, if the Board is used as a platform for coordinated, sustained de-escalation. Three conditions are essential: First,\u00a0a stable ceasefire with enforceable guarantees. This is the immediate priority and the one area where a multilateral body can make a rapid impact.
\nSecond, a credible political horizon: The region overwhelmingly supports a two-state solution. Without a viable pathway toward Palestinian statehood, any temporary calm will remain fragile. Saudi Arabia sees political progress as indispensable.
\nAnd third, regional and international alignment: if\u00a0the US, key Arab states, and the broader international community work together through this Board, rather than competing, then reconstruction, security assistance, and institution-building become achievable.
\nUnder these conditions, the Board could serve as a bridge: reducing suffering now, while laying the groundwork for a durable and just peace.
\nIn a nutshell, Saudi Arabia supports any serious effort that brings the guns to silence, opens a path for rebuilding Gaza, empowers Palestinians, and anchors the region in a stable, rules-based order. The Board of Peace can contribute to this goal if it remains inclusive, credible, and aligned with international law.
\nBatu:\u00a0Ending the conflict is unrealistic under current conditions, but violence can be reduced as long as Trump succeeds in restraining Israel. In the short term, risks remain high, particularly with Israel heading into elections.
\nLasting peace would require the addressing of core structural demands, including borders and statehood. A return to the 1967 borders is highly unlikely, meaning the Board of Peace can at best manage and contain the crisis rather than resolve it. Sustainable peace will require long-term groundwork, not only short-term initiatives.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A new US-led body promises to rebuild Gaza and secure Israel, but can peace be engineered without the voice of the governed? Unveiled with fanfare in Davos, US President Donald…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":27193,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rop_custom_images_group":[],"rop_custom_messages_group":[],"rop_publish_now":"initial","rop_publish_now_accounts":[],"rop_publish_now_history":[],"rop_publish_now_status":"pending","footnotes":""},"categories":[4,6,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27192","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-economy","category-environment","category-politics"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mongolianews.mn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27192","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mongolianews.mn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mongolianews.mn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mongolianews.mn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mongolianews.mn\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=27192"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mongolianews.mn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27192\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mongolianews.mn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/27193"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mongolianews.mn\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=27192"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mongolianews.mn\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=27192"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mongolianews.mn\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=27192"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}