Editorial: Can the Board of Peace Work? - Baltimore Jewish Times

The first meeting of the Board of Peace was not simply another diplomatic gathering. It was a declaration of method — a claim that peace can be engineered through money, leverage and centralized control rather than through the slow churn of traditional multilateral negotiation.

Nearly 50 countries attended. Twenty-six signed the charter. The United States pledged $10 billion for Gaza’s reconstruction, with billions more promised by others. A Gaza Reconstruction and Development Fund will operate through the World Bank, offering fiduciary oversight meant to reassure donors. After three years of war and a fragile cease-fire, the ambition was unmistakable: Tie money to outcomes and impose structure on chaos.

But the headline number comes with an asterisk. The $10 billion U.S. pledge requires congressional authorization and appropriations that do not yet exist. Until Congress acts, the board’s largest commitment remains aspirational rather than binding. Gaza’s reconstruction is estimated at more than $50 billion. Even if all announced pledges materialize, the board currently commands only a fraction of what will be required. That gap reflects not just scale, but the level of confidence major actors are prepared to invest.

The wager itself is blunt: Reconstruction money will flow only if Hamas disarms and Gaza transitions to a non-Hamas Palestinian governing body. This is aid as leverage, explicitly transactional. Palestinian technocrats acknowledged devastation and fragile institutions.

Israeli officials reiterated that Hamas has a limited window to surrender its weapons or face renewed military action. In this design, bulldozers and deadlines move together.

That conditionality distinguishes the board from past donor conferences that pledged billions while avoiding enforcement. It is an unapologetic formula — no gun forfeiture, no money distributed. But transactions require credibility. Hamas has not agreed to disarm.

Gaza’s governing institutions remain weak. Conditional aid succeeds only when enforcement is consistent and verifiable.

The board’s structure explains both its appeal and its unease. It is chaired by President Donald Trump, reportedly with lifetime tenure. Countries pledging $1 billion are offered lifetime membership. The board sets priorities; the World Bank safeguards how funds are spent. Political authority is concentrated; financial compliance is institutionalized.

Supporters see decisiveness — a forum unencumbered by vetoes. Several European governments declined to join, citing ambiguity about governance and legitimacy. Gulf pledges, while supportive, remain modest relative to capacity, suggesting caution rather than full strategic commitment.

Equally important is who was not central to the launch. Beyond a single technocratic voice, Palestinian political and civic leadership had little visible role in shaping the framework.

Reconstruction without clear Palestinian ownership risks appearing as external management rather than partnership.

Trump suggested the model could extend beyond Gaza, perhaps even rival the United Nations. The message is clear: traditional multilateralism is too slow; coalitions of willing states can move faster.

The envisioned end state — a demilitarized Gaza governed by non-Hamas Palestinians and financed by an international consortium — is coherent on paper. Whether it is achievable will depend less on pledges announced from a podium and more on whether the board can convert concentrated authority into durable legitimacy, sustained funding and enforceable peace. ■