AMMAN — A proposed “Board of Peace” has emerged as a central element in Washington’s approach to post-war Gaza, linking reconstruction funding to the security requirements of the current ceasefire agreement.

 

The initiative comes as the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, which entered into force in October 2025, advances under US sponsorship. This phase includes gradual Israeli withdrawal, security restructuring and disarmament provisions, alongside discussions on longer-term governance arrangements.

 

Ahead of the board’s opening meeting on February 19, US officials announced that up to $5 billion had been pledged for Gaza’s reconstruction. Participating states are also expected to contribute personnel to an international stabilisation force tasked with maintaining order and supporting local policing structures.

 

Under a draft agreement circulated to participating governments, the board will be chaired by the US president. Decisions would be adopted by majority vote but remain subject to presidential approval.

 

Countries seeking permanent membership are reportedly required to contribute no less than $1 billion.

 

Officials have presented the initiative as a mechanism to coordinate funding, oversee reconstruction projects and ensure that stabilisation efforts are aligned with ceasefire commitments.

 

The proposal builds on earlier approaches that linked economic recovery with political stabilisation.

 

Previous US-led initiatives in the region framed investment and infrastructure development as pathways toward de-escalation. The new board appears to revive that logic within the specific context of Gaza’s post-conflict phase.

 

Political analyst Amer Sabaileh said that the initiative outlines a phased roadmap that remains conditional.

 

“The programme is designed to restructure the entire Gaza landscape and is divided into stages, but it has not effectively begun yet,” he said.

 

“The project starts with the disarmament of Hamas. What has been presented is a roadmap that began with the release of living hostages, but the transition to reconstruction and the major projects discussed by the US administration will not begin in practical terms unless Hamas is disarmed.”

 

He added, “It is a programme for rebuilding Gaza, yet its starting point is the enforced removal of Hamas’ weapons.”

 

Sabaileh explained that reconstruction and security provisions are structurally linked within the proposed framework.

 

Political science expert Areej Jabr offered a contrasting interpretation.

 

“From my perspective, the Board of Peace represents a restructuring of influence and control within the Palestinian landscape rather than a genuine peace framework,” she said, adding, “It does not appear anchored in international legitimacy or Palestinian rights, and therefore cannot be understood as a sustainable solution.”

 

She argued that Gaza’s crisis extends beyond administrative reconstruction.

 

“The issue is not only humanitarian or administrative. It is political at its core. Sustainable peace cannot be built on temporary arrangements but must rest on recognised rights and international legality,” Jabr said.

 

Observers note that the structure of the board, particularly its concentration of authority and funding conditions, has prompted debate about its long-term implications.

 

Some view it as a practical coordination platform designed to prevent governance vacuum. Others question whether linking reconstruction funds to security benchmarks could complicate implementation.

 

The first meeting is expected to clarify operational mechanisms, funding channels and the scope of the stabilisation force.

 

Whether the initiative evolves into a strong governance framework or remains a conditional reconstruction platform will likely depend on how the ceasefire’s next phase unfolds and how regional and international actors respond, according to the experts.