The recent leak of a draft resolution proposing the creation of a “Board of Peace” for Gaza has exposed a remarkable intersection of diplomacy, power projection, and strategic influence. According to the draft, the United States would take a leading role in administering Gaza through a centralized board, headed by Donald Trump, with extensive authority over legislative, executive, and judicial matters. While the plan is officially framed as a humanitarian initiative aimed at stabilizing a conflict‑ridden region, its structure raises profound questions about sovereignty, legitimacy, and the real intentions behind externally imposed governance.
Centralization of Authority Under External Control
The most striking feature of the proposed board is its concentration of power in the hands of an external chair and selected allies. Palestinian political bodies, while nominally included as advisory or subordinate committees, would be subject to oversight from the board. This design effectively minimizes Palestinian participation in decision-making processes that affect their daily lives.
The draft presents the board as a mechanism to ensure “peace and stability” and to oversee reconstruction efforts. However, the authority granted goes far beyond coordination or advisory roles, giving the board the ability to enact, amend, and enforce laws unilaterally. In practice, this would place Gaza’s governance under the direct influence of foreign actors, sidelining the region’s existing institutions.
Such an arrangement creates the appearance of humanitarian oversight, while concentrating real power externally. For residents, this translates into governance decisions imposed from abroad, often with little regard for local conditions or perspectives.
Peacebuilding or Strategic Leverage?
While the resolution emphasizes stabilization and deradicalization, its structure suggests strategic priorities beyond humanitarian objectives. Members of the proposed board include international political figures, financial leaders, and U.S. allies, implying that economic reconstruction and geopolitical influence are central concerns.
Leaked details indicate that certain board positions might be contingent on political loyalty or financial contribution rather than expertise, hinting at a governance model shaped as much by patronage and leverage as by capacity for administration. The reconstruction and development of Gaza, with its immense economic potential post-conflict, provides opportunities for strategic investment and influence by participating states and actors.
This combination of political and economic interests signals that the board may function less as a neutral peacekeeping institution and more as a tool for external actors to shape regional outcomes in line with broader strategic goals.
The Humanitarian Gap
Despite its lofty rhetoric, the draft resolution appears disconnected from the realities on the ground. Gaza remains a territory in crisis: thousands are displaced, infrastructure is destroyed, and access to basic resources is limited. Residents continue to struggle for shelter, electricity, and clean water, challenges that are not easily resolved through external administrative oversight alone.
Diplomatic documents promise a vision of security, reconstruction, and deradicalization, yet the lived experience of Gazans tells a starkly different story. External oversight, especially when divorced from meaningful local input, risks exacerbating mistrust and resentment rather than building sustainable peace.
Moreover, by presenting governance as something administered from outside, the board may unintentionally legitimize dependence on foreign authorities, further undermining the development of locally accountable institutions.
Legal and Sovereignty Concerns
The leaked draft raises significant questions regarding international law and self-determination. For any external governance structure to be legitimate, it must respect the political and civil rights of the population it administers. However, in this draft, Palestinians would be largely spectators in decisions about laws, security, and reconstruction.
The resolution lacks clear timelines for transition, mechanisms for local accountability, or benchmarks that would ensure the board’s oversight remains temporary. Without such safeguards, the board could become a permanent instrument of external influence, sidestepping established norms of international governance.
Historically, externally imposed governance structures—such as trustee administrations or mandated authorities—often prioritized the strategic and economic interests of foreign powers over local populations. The parallels with this draft resolution are troubling, as it could institutionalize a form of soft control masked as humanitarian intervention.
Geopolitical Implications
The leaked document also exposes the geopolitical calculations underlying the initiative. Some states are likely to support the plan for economic or political leverage, while others remain cautious or critical, wary of the U.S.-centric approach. This tension underscores the challenge of implementing externally designed governance in a contested region.
Additionally, the leak itself reveals internal divergences in strategy. Even as official communications emphasize stability and reconstruction, the draft indicates that the U.S. aims to maintain decisive influence over the political and economic trajectory of Gaza. This duality — between public diplomacy and behind-the-scenes strategy — highlights the gap between stated humanitarian goals and underlying geopolitical interests.
Controlled Transparency and International Response
The emergence of this draft through a leak rather than formal channels highlights how strategic opacity can shape international perception. By circulating partial drafts, external actors can gauge reactions, adjust strategy, and maintain a level of ambiguity about the plan’s implementation.
The international response has been mixed. Some Gulf states and allies appear willing to engage with the initiative, motivated by diplomatic recognition or investment opportunities. European powers and multilateral institutions, however, have expressed caution, concerned that such a U.S.-led governance mechanism could undermine the authority of established international organizations like the UN and weaken norms regarding self-governance and sovereignty.
The “Board of Peace” draft exemplifies a critical tension in modern international policy: the difference between stated humanitarian intentions and actual mechanisms of control. While it is presented as a stabilizing force for Gaza, the governance model centralizes authority in external hands, marginalizes local participation, and embeds political and economic interests into the administration of the territory.
For peace to be meaningful and sustainable, it must be locally anchored, with mechanisms that empower communities to govern their own affairs. Without such grounding, the board risks becoming a vehicle for influence masquerading as diplomacy, where control is mistaken for peace, and external oversight substitutes for genuine local agency.
The leak serves as a stark reminder that transparency without accountability can be misleading. Even when plans are public, the real test lies in how power is exercised, whose voices are heard, and whether local populations retain the ability to shape their own future.
Comments