President Trump convened a novel diplomatic assembly in Washington today that deliberately sidesteps traditional UN powerbrokers, securing at least $5 billion in international pledges for Gaza’s reconstruction while tying every dollar to one explosive condition: Hamas must disarm.
Story Snapshot
- Trump’s Board of Peace gathered 27 member nations and envoys from 45 countries in Washington, bypassing other UN Security Council permanent members
- Countries pledged at least $5 billion toward Gaza reconstruction, with UAE and Kuwait each committing $1.2 billion
- The initiative excludes Palestinian groups initially and demands Hamas demilitarization as a precondition for Palestinian self-determination
- Israel joined the board last week but continues blocking U.S.-backed technocrats from entering Gaza to establish interim governance
- Experts warn Gaza’s future hinges entirely on Hamas disarmament, with failure risking permanent partition or renewed conflict
Bypassing the Old Guard
Trump orchestrated the inaugural Board of Peace meeting with a membership roster that pointedly excludes Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz justified the unconventional structure by declaring the “old ways” have failed. The board draws heavily from Gulf Arab and Central Asian nations, reflecting a strategic pivot away from traditional multilateral frameworks that have produced decades of stalemate. This approach mirrors Trump’s earlier Abraham Accords diplomacy but adds an economic reconstruction component absent from previous Middle East peace initiatives. The conspicuous absence of Palestinian representation signals a calculated bet that economic incentives and regional pressure can succeed where inclusive negotiations have not.
The Five Billion Dollar Gamble
The pledged $5 billion represents more than humanitarian goodwill. UAE and Kuwait each committed $1.2 billion, demonstrating Gulf states’ willingness to invest substantial capital in regional stability. These economic targets for 2026 aim to rebuild Gaza’s shattered infrastructure while establishing a technocratic governance structure independent of Hamas control. The funding mechanism creates leverage: reconstruction flows only if Hamas surrenders its weapons and military capabilities. This conditionality transforms traditional aid into a strategic instrument designed to reshape Gaza’s political landscape. Gulf donors gain regional influence, Israel obtains security assurances, and the U.S. positions itself as the indispensable mediator, all contingent on dismantling Hamas’s military apparatus.
The Demilitarization Dilemma
Dennis Ross and David Makovsky from the Washington Institute frame the stakes starkly: Hamas disarmament opens a pathway to Palestinian statehood and Gaza reunification, while refusal condemns Gaza to perpetual partition, continued Hamas rule, Israeli occupation, or renewed warfare. Israel joined the board last week but simultaneously blocks the U.S.-backed technocratic committee from entering Gaza, revealing tensions even among coalition members. Near-daily Israeli strikes continue against alleged Hamas threats while both sides trade accusations of truce violations. The Rafah crossing remains partially open, enabling 108 medical evacuations and 269 returns, yet humanitarian access stays severely restricted. The board’s success depends on resolving this central paradox: rebuilding requires stability, but stability requires disarmament that Hamas shows no inclination to accept voluntarily.
What Happens Next
The board’s structure raises fundamental legitimacy questions that money alone cannot resolve. Excluding Palestinian groups from initial deliberations while demanding Hamas surrender creates a negotiating framework where key stakeholders have no seat at the table. The technocratic governance committee remains theoretical until Israel permits entry, and no mechanism exists to compel Hamas compliance beyond economic incentives and regional pressure. Short-term humanitarian benefits from the $5 billion could materialize through Rafah access and reconstruction projects, but long-term transformation requires Hamas to voluntarily dismantle the military infrastructure that defines its power and purpose. The initiative represents either a pragmatic recognition that traditional diplomacy has exhausted its possibilities or a dangerous gamble that economic inducements can substitute for political inclusion.
Gaza’s two million residents face a binary future shaped entirely by decisions made in distant capitals. If Hamas disarms, reconstruction proceeds and self-determination becomes possible. If Hamas refuses, the territory remains divided, impoverished, and vulnerable to cyclical violence. Trump’s board offers Gulf nations influence, Israel security assurances, and the U.S. diplomatic primacy, but delivers nothing to Gazans without Hamas capitulation. Whether this novel approach succeeds where decades of traditional negotiations failed depends on a single unresolved question: can economic pressure and regional isolation accomplish what military campaigns and diplomatic initiatives could not?
Sources:
Gaza Board of Peace Meets Today – Council on Foreign Relations
