Last week, the “Board of Peace” established by President Trump convened in Washington. The week before, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced Israel’s joining of the board (even though this decision is the purview of the entire government). It’s possible that Netanyahu skipped the meeting to avoid interacting with leaders from Turkey and Qatar, two board member states. It’s also plausible that these leaders don’t want to associate with him. Either way, the very establishment of the board reflects an important change in the structure of the international arena.

The Board of Peace was initially presented as a mechanism for the reconstruction of Gaza after the war, but it soon became clear that President Trump’s ambitions were much more far-reaching: an attempt to shape a new international framework – one that seeks to be more confined and operational, functioning alongside the UN, and perhaps, in the Trumpist utopia, even as an alternative to it.

The establishment of the board takes place against the backdrop of a severe economic crisis in which the UN is embroiled, following a delay in the transfer of billions of dollars – the United States’ share of the organization’s budget for the years 2025-2026. At the same time, the US administration is asking the countries participating in the Board of Peace to each contribute significant amounts of money that will strengthen the board’s ability to operate far beyond the borders of the Gaza Strip – for which the “Executive Council for Gaza,” led by Nikolai Mladenov, the former UN envoy to the Middle East, has effectively taken responsibility.

In the past, there have been many initiatives to establish power centers alongside the UN. As early as the 1950s, the “Non-Aligned Movement,” initiated by India, was formed, declaring itself as not being influenced by either of the blocs – Western or Soviet. About 15 years ago, the BRICS bloc was established at the initiative of Russia, and of course, there is also the G7, which unites the seven leading Western economies, the G20, NATO, and the defunct Warsaw Pact. The goal of this board is different; no longer are states coalescing around their interests, but instead they desire to create a global body that will lead to crisis resolution. This attempt to establish an alternative to the UN is why the liberal democratic countries of Europe did not join.

We cannot ignore the UN’s poor operational capability. In a system where every decision requires a delicate balance between conflicting interests, the pace of action is slow. Given the reality of ongoing wars and humanitarian crises requiring urgent responses, a gap sometimes arises at the UN between understanding what needs to happen and the ability to implement solutions in practice.

In Trump’s vision, the Board of Peace plays a crucial role. Accompanied by the momentum from his partial success in achieving a ceasefire in Gaza, Trump sought to establish an entity in his image that would help him “bring the message” to other parts of the world as well. In other words, the Board of Peace aims to take action rather than just talk, investing political and economic resources to bring about change that would also benefit the member states. Like the peace Trump seeks to promote in Ukraine, demanding the use of the country’s existing minerals, and like the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Maduro, it was not motivated by the struggle for civil rights in the country; rather, it aimed to secure a foothold in the country’s oil reserves, similar to his interest in Greenland for its minerals and strategic location.

However, it is crucial to exercise caution when drawing hasty conclusions about the UN’s decline. The UN was not meant to be quick in its actions but first and foremost to create binding norms, and it provides three irreplaceable strategic assets: • Legitimacy and broad recognition. • The UN establishes a legal and institutional framework through resolutions from the UN Security Council, oversight mechanisms, and other means. • The ability to turn a political move into an international norm – regardless of the identity of this or that government.

The ceasefire in Gaza is the first test for the Board of Peace. It is already clear today that maintaining the ceasefire over time will be even more difficult than achieving it, and here the question arises: whether an entity like the Board of Peace, which is limited in its international legitimacy, truly has the power to sustain it.

The Board of Peace’s weaknesses and the UN’s inability to act raise the question of how to integrate the two, not whether the Board will replace the UN. The Board of Peace and the bodies operating under it can create regional momentum, but only the UN can grant these moves global validity, stability, and broad legitimacy.

Israel does not need to choose between the two arenas. On the contrary, Israel must act on both fronts. Integrate into a regional coalition that will enable reconstruction and stability, while simultaneously ensuring that these moves are anchored within a broad international framework that will maintain their legitimacy over time.

The Israeli government needs to understand that the current moment presents an historic opportunity. The growing sense of urgency in the international community and across the region must be translated into a clear and irreversible path toward a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside Israel – one anchored in a regional coalition that includes both Israel and Palestine while pushing back extremism from all sides.

The establishment of the Board of Peace also reflects a broad recognition that what happens in Gaza does not stay there but reverberates throughout the region and beyond. As a state, we must comprehend this and, rather than hindering the progress of political arrangements, actively promote them. Israel should take action, both on the Board of Peace and at the UN, to move toward the only solution that can bring sustainable peace to our region.

The convening last week in Washington could mark the beginning of a new chapter in regional diplomacy. But its success will not be measured by whether it replaces an existing institution but by its ability to integrate into a broader international architecture. Israel must hope for, promote, and join the global effort to end regional conflict.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)