Board of Peace is an exclusionary imperialist project, not a path to peace

The Board of Peace, created under U.S. President Donald Trump, is presented here as far more than a mechanism for managing the aftermath of Israel's war in Gaza. The article argues that it represents an attempt to pressure the oppressed in favor of the oppressor, repeating a U.S. approach to the Palestinian issue that disregards international justice, law and United Nations resolutions.

“

more nimble and effective international peace-building body

Its ambitions, the article says, extend beyond Gaza. The board reflects the Trump administration's effort to preserve a de facto U.S.-led world order through institutions designed to serve its own interests. Even Western allies could be excluded, while the United Nations and the remaining authority of international law would be pushed aside.

Although the U.N. Security Council reportedly approved the board in November 2025 through Resolution 2803 to manage a fragile cease-fire in Gaza, its charter makes no mention of Gaza. Instead, it describes the BoP as a permanent and more flexible peace-building body, with the courage to move away from institutions that have supposedly failed. The article treats that language as a direct attack on the United Nations and a signal that the board could seek to replace agreed international structures.

“

courage to depart from approaches and institutions that have too often failed

The membership rules reinforce that criticism. Invitations are required, most terms last three years, and a permanent seat can reportedly be purchased through a $1 billion life-membership fee. Trump, the only person named in the charter, would hold sweeping authority: he could choose and remove members, set the agenda, issue resolutions unilaterally and appoint his successor. The article cites descriptions of the body as a pay-to-play club and an imperial court.

“

global version of his Mar-a-Lago court aimed at supplanting the U.N. itself

Western media and political figures, particularly in Europe, are described as having condemned the project as an effort to bypass the international system created after 1945. The Guardian compared it with a global version of Trump's Mar-a-Lago court and a feudal system, while the BBC said it resembled a colonial structure.

“

feudal system