Trump's Board of Peace: Can it deliver a future for Gaza?

Khan Younis - Nearly a year after a ceasefire halted the heaviest fighting in Gaza, Palestinian analysts say the recovery plan unveiled last week by the US-led Board of Peace will not make any progress before Israelis vote on 27 October.

Its fate, they argue, will depend largely on the next Israeli government and the positions it takes on Gaza, and still faces a series of political and security obstacles before it can move from paper to the ground.

The Board presented the six-month, $2.45 billion program on 23 September on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York. It sets out 66 costed programs across six clusters: infrastructure, human development, economic acceleration, digital transformation, legal recovery, and peace and security.

Chaired by US President Donald Trump, the Board operates under a UN Security Council mandate adopted in November 2025. The program was drawn up under its supervision by the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), the Palestinian technocratic body meant to take over the Strip's daily affairs. 

The plan hinges almost entirely on Hamas handing over its weapons and its control of Gaza to the new administration. Meanwhile, Israel's military still controls more than 60 percent of the territory. 

Experts who spoke to The New Arab expect the plan to be amended and doubt it will be implemented in its current form or at the announced pace. Some believe its success depends on full Israeli approval.

Others describe it as a "major deception" intended to prolong Gaza's catastrophe and push its people to ask the world to let them emigrate.

Meanwhile, Nickolay Mladenov, the Board's high representative for Gaza, has described three possible paths for the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian territory could remain in its current state, Israel could expand its military operations and reoccupy it, or the parties could implement the Board's roadmap.

He warned that failure to move forward could make a two-state solution practically impossible. 

Waiting for the Israeli elections

Israeli affairs expert Ismat Mansour argues that implementation of the plan is "definitively linked to the Israeli elections," saying Netanyahu is postponing major decisions until after the vote because he does not want to appear to have withdrawn from Gaza, eased pressure on Hamas, or ended the war without achieving what he can present as a victory before the election.

“Until then, Netanyahu will keep political options open,” he told The New Arab. “He is not allowing any concessions or even allowing the NCAG to intervene.”

Board officials describe a similar picture. Netanyahu largely cooperated with the Board for most of the past year, one Israeli official said, but stopped entirely about two months ago when the election campaign officially began.

Nickolay Mladenov, the Board's high representative for Gaza, acknowledged in New York that talks with Israel have been difficult during the campaign.

Abu Rahma agrees that the plan is heavily tied to the vote, because the current government treats Gaza as both a security file and a domestic political issue. 

He warns, however, against assuming that a new government would transform the situation. 

"It cannot be said that a change of government will automatically improve the situation in Gaza. A change could open a new political space, but it will not be sufficient on its own," he told The New Arab.

Much will depend on the composition of the next government and its positions on withdrawal, disarmament, Palestinian administration, an international presence, and reconstruction.

The opposition is led by former army chief Gadi Eisenkot, whose centrist Yashar party is running alongside the joint list of former prime ministers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid. A government led by Eisenkot or Bennett could open more room for the Board. 

Such a government would be less dependent on settler and ultra-Orthodox partners. It would therefore likely find it easier to accept the full sequencing of the disarmament and reconstruction plan, including withdrawal to the original Yellow Line.

“The outcome of the election will determine the course ahead,” says Mansour. “Netanyahu is more hardline than Eisenkot, so what happens after the election will be crucial.”

A Jerusalem Post column argued that a new government would create an immediate opening for the Palestinian technocratic committee to take over civilian authority and for reconstruction to begin. 

Mansour agrees with this position, seeing more room for change. A new Israeli government, he argues, could give the Palestinian Authority a broader role, explore ways to strengthen the Board if international forces cannot be secured, or draw on the Palestinian Authority's security capabilities in Gaza.

But so far, the outcome is far from certain. Israel faces a real possibility of a stalemate in the 27 October vote, which would complicate efforts to advance the recovery program even further.

The vote looks set to end in deadlock. Neither the bloc led by Netanyahu's Likud, which includes the far-right Religious Zionism and Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) parties and the ultra-Orthodox Shas and United Torah Judaism, nor the opposition, is close to the 61 seats needed to govern.

The Palestinian-majority parties could tip the balance, but a 23 September ban by  Israel's Central Elections Committee, which voted to bar Ra'am and the Joint List from running, despite the attorney general's opposition to barring Ra'am. The Supreme Court, which has overturned similar bans before, must rule by 4 October. 

Without their roughly 12 seats, the opposition's path to a majority narrows. Even with them, much of the Zionist opposition has ruled out governing with Palestinian parties, and Eisenkot has said Ra'am will not be part of his government.

For Netanyahu, the campaign leaves little room to show any flexibility on Gaza. His far-right partners have campaigned against any withdrawal from the Strip, any public sign he would reduce Israel's control there, or make concessions to Hamas, would likely cost him his voter base. 

Hamas weapons or Israeli withdrawal first?

Hamas accepted the Board's disarmament plan on 30 July, but its implementation stalled after Israel rejected it. The plan linked disarmament to a phased Israeli withdrawal, while Netanyahu insists Hamas must give up its weapons before Israeli forces pull back.

In August, Netanyahu said Israeli forces would stay in their current positions until Hamas had fully disarmed. After meeting him, the Board hardened its position and tied any pullback beyond the Yellow Line to the complete decommissioning of light weapons, heavy weapons, and tunnels, dropping the phased approach it had presented days earlier. 

Mansour says the election is the plan's main obstacle but not its only one. Other unresolved questions include how withdrawal and disarmament would be synchronised, how and when weapons would be collected, which areas Israel would leave, how Hamas would be removed from government, and when and where the Board would assume its responsibilities.

The Yellow Line itself has become part of the problem. It is the demarcation set by the October 2025 ceasefire as the position to which Israeli troops would initially withdraw. Israel's military has since confirmed that it controls 60 percent of Gaza, up from the 53 percent agreed in the ceasefire talks. In July, Israeli control had reached nearly 70 percent.

The International Crisis Group (ICG) said this month that Israeli forces are levelling neighbourhoods behind the line and enforcing it as a no-go zone as they push it toward the sea.

“I do not expect a complete or rapid Israeli withdrawal from the areas behind the Yellow Line without a binding US decision involving all parties and a clear political agreement on disarmament and security arrangements,” Abu Rahma says.

He also warns against a piecemeal approach, adding that continued reconstruction in some areas but not others would be a major problem, as it would create geographically fragmented reconstruction and make Gaza appear as if it consisted of multiple areas in terms of administration, security, and services.

"The most stable solution is for the Israeli withdrawal and reconstruction to take place as a synchronised and gradual process," he told The New Arab.

Board of Peace: A strategic deception

Academic and political analyst Talal Abu Rokba reads the plan very differently. He believes that "everything that is happening is an attempt to deceive the world into believing that solutions are coming for Gaza while Israel continues with its plans to displace its people". 

The killing has indeed continued. Gaza's Health Ministry said on 26 September that 1,145 Palestinians had been killed since the ceasefire took effect, bringing the war's toll to around 74,000 killed and 175,000 wounded, although the unofficial death toll is thought to be much higher.

Speaking at the UN General Assembly on 24 September, Netanyahu rejected accusations that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza and ruled out Palestinian statehood under present conditions.

Mansour shares part of Abu Rokba's concern. He links the success of the recovery plan to Israel's intentions for Gaza's population, saying that "the displacement issue remains on the table and will remain so as long as the recovery phase does not genuinely begin".

Israel's defence minister has confirmed the government's intention to move large numbers of Palestinians out of Gaza "at the right time and in the right manner”.

“It’s like throwing dust in the eyes to cover up the ongoing genocide, a strategic deception carried out by the Board of Peace to sustain Israeli policy in Gaza,” says Abu Rukba. 

He also argues that the Board was designed to meet Israel's core demand that Gaza should not come under any genuine Palestinian rule, with the Board and the technocratic committee serving as alternatives to the Palestinian statehood Netanyahu seeks to eliminate.

“Israel is not allowing the committee to operate. They meet with the Americans, Europeans and Arabs, issue statements, and are in contact with the UN and even officials in the Palestinian Authority, but they have no presence on the ground,” says Abu Rokba.

Mansour expects changes after the Israeli vote, and within the Palestinian Authority and its structures as well, including possible elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council.

Palestinian elections and any reconciliation within Fatah, he says, could change the course of Gaza as a whole, and could transform the recovery plan completely. 

Mohamed Solaimane is a Gaza-based journalist with bylines in regional and international outlets, focusing on humanitarian and environmental issues

This piece is published in collaboration with Egab.

Edited by Charlie Hoyle