The proposed “Board of Peace” designed to govern Gaza during its transition faces significant uncertainty regarding composition and authority. Under the UN-endorsed plan from November, this transitional body would administer Gaza following Israeli withdrawal, with former President Donald Trump theoretically serving as chairman, though other members remain unidentified.
The transitional governance structure represents a crucial component of the second phase, intended to fill the power vacuum created by Israeli military departure and provide legitimate authority during reconstruction. However, Arab and Muslim nations’ hesitance to participate in related stabilization forces raises questions about the board’s viability and effectiveness. Without regional buy-in, the governing mechanism lacks credibility and practical support.
Qatari Premier Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani characterized the next phase as temporary from his perspective, calling instead for lasting solutions providing justice for both peoples. This view suggests that even agreement architects recognize the transitional arrangements as insufficient for permanent peace. The board concept may serve as a necessary intermediate step rather than a final resolution.
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan emphasized that proper sequencing matters more than rushing into complex arrangements like Hamas disarmament. He advocated for realistic approaches prioritizing achievable goals before tackling more contentious issues. This pragmatic perspective acknowledges that establishing effective transitional governance requires foundational stability and mutual trust.
The Board of Peace concept depends entirely on Israeli withdrawal and international force deployment, neither of which has occurred. Egypt’s Foreign Minister warned that daily Israeli violations continue unabated, making transitional governance arrangements premature. Until basic ceasefire terms are honored and security forces separate the parties, discussing sophisticated governing structures remains largely theoretical rather than practical.