Trump's Board of Peace Faces Implementation Crisis: Why Gaza Reconstruction Pledges May Fall Short

7 predicted events · 20 source articles analyzed · Model: claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929

The Reality Behind the Rhetoric

President Donald Trump's Board of Peace held its inaugural meeting on February 19-20, 2026, with representatives from nearly 50 countries gathering in Washington to address Gaza's reconstruction. While the optics featured impressive pledges—$7 billion from nine member nations and $10 billion from the United States—the gap between diplomatic theater and ground reality suggests this initiative faces significant implementation challenges ahead.

Current Situation: A Fragile Foundation

Four months after Trump declared a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in October 2025, the situation in Gaza remains volatile. According to Article 1, "the war has not disappeared" and Palestinians continue to experience casualties, with Israeli airstrikes killing at least 12 people as recently as the Sunday before the Board meeting. Article 6 reveals that on the ground, displaced Gazans living in tents express deep skepticism: "I've heard about money being collected for Gaza, but we see nothing," said 43-year-old Amal Joudeh. The Board of Peace meeting produced several concrete commitments. Article 4 details that Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Morocco, Kosovo, and Albania pledged troops for a 20,000-strong International Stabilisation Force (ISF). Nine countries—Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, UAE, Morocco, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and Kuwait—committed $7 billion for reconstruction, according to Article 10. However, critical details remain absent. Article 18 notes this represents "a small fraction of the estimated $70 billion needed to rebuild the Palestinian territory." More troubling, Article 2 highlights that only one Palestinian was present at the international gathering, while major European nations like the United Kingdom sent only observers, wary of Russian participation.

Key Structural Problems

### The Hamas Disarmament Deadlock The fundamental challenge threatening the entire initiative is Hamas disarmament. Article 18 explicitly identifies this as "a sticking point that threatens to delay or even derail the Gaza ceasefire plan." Article 13 confirms that "the Trump peace plan for Gaza depends on Hamas disarming," yet provides no mechanism or timeline for achieving this prerequisite. Article 19 captures expert skepticism succinctly: Michael Waheed Hanna from Crisis Group states that "the diplomacy to get to the reconstruction and governance phase of the ceasefire 'just isn't taking place at the moment.'" ### Funding Without Strategy Trump announced a $10 billion U.S. contribution but Article 13 notes he "did not specify the source of that funding," which "would likely require approval from Congress." Given the current political climate and congressional oversight requirements, securing this appropriation is far from guaranteed. ### Minimal Palestinian Participation The absence of meaningful Palestinian representation undermines legitimacy. Article 7 confirms "there is no Palestinian representative on the board," while Article 12 quotes Palestine's UN envoy Riyad Mansour declaring, "There is no peace anywhere, anytime." Without Palestinian buy-in, any governance or reconstruction framework faces inherent instability.

Predicted Developments

### Implementation Delays and Funding Shortfalls The timeline for deploying the International Stabilisation Force will extend well beyond initial projections. Article 18 notes Trump "offered no detail on when the pledges would be implemented," suggesting coordination challenges ahead. Expect the 20,000-troop deployment to take 6-12 months minimum, with contributing nations seeking clarification on rules of engagement, command structure, and exit strategies. The $7 billion in pledges represents less than 10% of reconstruction needs. Even optimistically, additional fundraising rounds will struggle without demonstrable progress on security and governance. The FIFA partnership mentioned in Article 8—pledging $75 million for football projects including a 20,000-seat stadium—exemplifies misplaced priorities when basic housing and infrastructure remain destroyed. ### Escalation of Israeli Operations With Hamas disarmament stalled and no enforcement mechanism, Israel will likely intensify military operations in Gaza under the guise of "security concerns." Article 1 reports Israel currently controls "about half of Gaza" and continues demolishing houses. This pattern will accelerate, effectively rendering the ceasefire meaningless for Palestinian civilians. ### European and Arab Hesitation Major European powers and some Arab states will maintain observer status rather than full participation. Article 7's mention of UK concerns about Russian involvement reflects broader European skepticism about the Board's legitimacy and effectiveness. This limited buy-in reduces international pressure on Israel and diminishes the initiative's diplomatic weight. ### Congressional Resistance to U.S. Funding The $10 billion U.S. commitment will face significant congressional scrutiny. Without clear accountability mechanisms, conditions on Hamas disarmament, and a credible reconstruction plan, appropriating this sum becomes politically challenging, particularly with competing domestic priorities.

The Six-Month Outlook

Within six months, the Board of Peace will likely face its first major crisis: partial withdrawal of troop commitments following security incidents, stalled reconstruction due to funding delays and ongoing Israeli military operations, and growing international recognition that the initiative lacks substantive mechanisms for achieving its stated goals. Article 16 captures Trump's expanded ambitions—the Board will tackle "not just the Middle East but the whole world." This mission creep, combined with structural deficiencies in the Gaza plan itself, suggests the Board of Peace may follow the trajectory of many grand diplomatic initiatives: impressive launch, incremental progress reports, eventual quiet abandonment. The harsh reality, as Article 6 documents through Palestinian voices on the ground, is that without addressing fundamental political issues—occupation, sovereignty, governance—billions in pledges and thousands of peacekeepers cannot deliver sustainable peace. The Board of Peace risks becoming another layer of international bureaucracy administering a frozen conflict rather than resolving it.