Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace,” inaugurated in early 2026 to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction and potentially supplant UN roles, began with low expectations and limited attendance, as many U.S. allies opted out. While 26 countries joined the charter, only 19 attended the initial, vaguely detailed meeting, which was criticized as a “masterclass in branding” rather than an established diplomatic force.

Many countries, including major U.S. allies, did not attend the initial meeting. Nearly half of the invited nations held off on signing the charter. Originally intended for Gaza rebuilding, the board expanded to potentially oversee the United Nations, with Trump as chair for life, wielding significant veto power.

The board saw a $10 billion pledge from the U.S. for Gaza and, by its first day, 9 members pledged $7 billion for relief. The board has been described as a “fascinating experiment in monetizing international legitimacy” and a “corporate board meeting” rather than a traditional diplomatic body.  India was invited but did not attend, with reports indicating it was still examining the proposal, while others like Pakistan accepted the invitation.

Trump can try to dictate and be a deal-maker. He cannot, however, replace the United Nations. That’s utter nonsense and the idea will be stillborn. At best, the BOP is doomed to an early death, if things go a little better for Trump.

Trump can try to dictate and be a deal-maker. He cannot, however, replace the United Nations. That’s utter nonsense and the idea will be stillborn. At best, the BOP is doomed to an early death, if things go a little better for Trump.

The initiative remains under scrutiny, with critics questioning its ability to replace established UN mechanisms. There are too many empty chairs. Trump does not like that because in his school master-like role, he is ordering the absentees to stop “being cute”. Trump can try to dictate and be a deal-maker. He cannot replace the United Nations. That’s utter nonsense and the idea will be stillborn. At best, the (Board for Peace) BOP is doomed to an early death, if things go a little better for Trump.

Nor does the BOP have that kind of people with diplomatic skills, knowledge of the region, cultural sensitivities, and political finesse to take this forward. Kushner looks like the nominated CEO. And what does have for background -14 books on Israel. Scholars have written far more. Kushner would never have got into the BOP had he been interviewed by a knowledgeable group of political thinkers from Palestine- a first round exit it would have been.

READ: Mexico declines Trump’s Gaza Peace Board and reaffirms support for Palestine

In sharp remarks by ABC Net News, the author observes rather humorously: “George Orwell would have had a chuckle listening to US President Donald Trump speaking at the inaugural meeting of his new international organisation. Orwell, the author of the classic book 1984, delighted in organisations being named the opposite of what they actually were. He would have seen the irony of Trump — the founder of something called the “Board of Peace” — making clear in his very first speech to this new peace organisation that he may give the order for a major new war in the Middle East within 10 days”.

The board’s shaky beginning, characterized by a lack of international consensus, was consistent with initial, widespread criticism of its, “corporate,” rather than, “diplomatic,” structure.  The initiative was marked by scepticism, with critics noting the lack of concrete plans for disarming Hamas or a clear, long-term strategy.

The board’s shaky beginning, characterised by a lack of international consensus, was consistent with initial, widespread criticism of its, “corporate,” rather than, “diplomatic,” structure.

The board’s shaky beginning, characterised by a lack of international consensus, was consistent with initial, widespread criticism of its, “corporate,” rather than, “diplomatic,” structure.

Netanyahu’s absence from the Board of Peace event has a story to tell. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar attended, but stayed mum. Trump’s public confidence that Hamas will “give up their weapons” was naivety without grounding. He probably has no clue that Hamas members have Hamas is finished as a governing authority.”

While proponents highlight the $7 billion in pledges for reconstruction and commitments for a stabilization force, the initiative has been heavily criticized for being vague, underfunded, and opaque, while raising concerns about its potential to undermine the United Nations. The $7 billion pledged by nine nations is well short of the estimated $70 billion needed to rebuild Gaza after two years of war. Despite high-level promises, few concrete details were provided on how the money would be used, how Hamas would be disarmed, or when Israeli troops would fully withdraw.

Trump guilelessly believes Hamas is finished. It probably is, in its earlier avatar as the governance authority of Gaza. Yet, an organisation with a mass base, and a history of being a resistance movement cannot be “finished” with a click of the finger. While simultaneously collecting taxes on cigarettes, batteries and mobile phones; integrating police into a proposed new force; paying public servants; and reconstituting municipal structures, Hamas collects shekels in taxes on smuggled goods.

By contrast; the Board has no independent revenue stream. The BOP has only a couple of pledges – the I billion dollars that was extracted from several countries. on February 19, 2026. Just this nothing at all. This is why the BoP for Gaza has faced weighty criticism and challenges, characterizing its very launch as problematic.

An organisation cannot be “finished” while simultaneously collecting taxes on cigarettes, batteries and mobile phones; integrating police into a proposed new force; paying public servants; and reconstituting municipal structures. Political science teaches a simple lesson: governance is not rhetoric. It is control over territory, revenue, security, and administration. By those metrics, Hamas remains embedded.

READ: Indonesia’s trade deal with US risks straining its Middle East partnerships

Trump’s outbursts and transactions- many of which have been extracted by threats and intimidation, should be seen from a psychological perspective. Much of his policy impositions display what some psycho-therapists describe as ‘Intermittent explosive disorder’ (IED) or a variation of this. IED is a condition that involves frequent episodes of impulsive anger quite out of proportion to the event that triggered it. Specialist in the USA have raised this, and those who watch some of Trump’s dealings with his political opponents, and the media will ascribe to this. The presentation of “New Gaza” projects included AI-generated renderings, described by critics as “AI slop” or a “US-first western hemisphere” logo on a “Trumpian gold” shield. There is an element of inanity and obliviousness coupled with conceit beyond all reasonable proportions.

The $7 billion pledged by nine nations is well short of the estimated $70 billion needed to rebuild Gaza after two years of war. Despite high-level promises, few concrete details were provided on how the money would be used, how Hamas would be disarmed, or when Israeli troops would fully withdraw.

The $7 billion pledged by nine nations is well short of the estimated $70 billion needed to rebuild Gaza after two years of war. Despite high-level promises, few concrete details were provided on how the money would be used, how Hamas would be disarmed, or when Israeli troops would fully withdraw.

Political science teaches a simple lesson: governance is not rhetoric. It is control over territory, revenue, security, and administration. By those metrics, Hamas remains embedded. Based on reports and analyses of the situation in Gaza through late 2025 and early 2026, the assessment that Hamas remains “embedded” through control of territory, revenue, security, and administration has been a central, albeit contested, point of analysis. While the group suffered massive military losses and lost territorial control to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during the war, it has shown resilience in reasserting aspects of governance.

While Hamas remains a significant player, analysts describe the post-October 2024 Hamas as a “pale shadow” of its former self, operating in a, degraded, guerrilla-style capacity rather than as a centralized government. Despite the destruction of its formal bureaucratic structure, Hamas has demonstrated an ability to adapt and survive as a combatant force.

In summary, while Hamas’s direct, open, and total control over the Gaza Strip has been severely broken, it has shown significant capacity to re-embed itself in local governance and security, making it a persistent, though weakened, force in the territory.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor