Gaza’s Board of Peace: A Betrayal by the Middle Eastern and Muslim States?

Eight Muslim-majority nations – Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates – have been accused of and criticized for supporting a “colonial” structure, and for imposing foreign U.S. governance in Gaza through the Board of Peace (BoP). Critics state that this undermines Palestinian self-determination and legitimizes Israel’s control over occupied territories. Following the large-scale genocide in Gaza, U.S. President Donald Trump created the Board of Peace, an international organization aimed at overseeing the postwar administration, security, and rebuilding of the Gaza Strip. The BoP presents itself as an international body established to manage Gaza’s postwar recovery, with its charter outlining a mandate to secure, manage, and enforce peace stabilization and reconstruction efforts in conflict zones around the globe. President Trump has appointed himself the inaugural chairman, granting himself significant veto authority with no term limit and the ability to name his own successor. 

Drafted by the U.S. and approved by the United Nations, the Security Council Resolution 2803 mandated the board to support demilitarization, stabilization, and reconstruction in Gaza through 2027. However, the plan faces significant criticism due to its vagueness regarding implementation. It only states the removal of Hamas' administration without clearly defining its scope or mentioning the mandate for Gaza, thus allowing for broad interpretations of its operational and territorial boundaries. Muslim leaders of the eight countries have also faced significant internal and external criticism for their involvement in Donald Trump’s BoP. Due to their inaction and failure to center the agreement around Palestinian self-determination and human rights, the leaders of the countries have been accused by citizens and opposition parties of prioritizing geopolitical maneuvering over the Palestinian cause. 

In the case of Indonesia, the Indonesian Ulama Council had voiced its initial doubts regarding Indonesia’s acceptance and participation in the BoP, but after a closed-door briefing, the doubts shifted into conditional support. Critics and analysts argue that the eight countries, including Indonesia, are heading into a period of increased diplomacy with Israel, resisting the Palestinian liberation. Accusations have also been leveled against the BoP for allegedly endeavoring to substitute the UN's position, thereby diminishing the international legal structure that the leaders of the eight nations had previously committed to without any hesitation or dissent. In international society, and Palestinian liberation is less of a concern for the BoP, but is instead seen as a diplomatic opportunity to strengthen relations with the United States and other participating countries. Many foreign policy experts have highlighted potential risks and domestic fallout of such policies because the public sentiment in these majority-Muslim countries on Palestine doesn’t align with the leaders’ actions.

Alternatively, Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has frequently put forward President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, describing him as a "man of peace" due to his role in ending the conflict in Palestine. However, public opinion views these nominations as bizarre and detrimental to Pakistan's long-standing support for the Palestinian cause. Its citizens have criticized Pakistan for not advocating for Palestinian representation and consent, while also working with Israel for the future governance of Palestine, marking the first step of recognition between the two countries. Critics have also highlighted the hypocritical approach, as Pakistan has actively advocated for the self-determination of Kashmiris, but imposes an external framework of peace onto Palestinians for economic benefit. The public, along with Sharif’s political opposition, Pakistan Tehreek-Insaf, and religious parties, have unequivocally rejected Sharif’s support for BoP, claiming it abandons the Palestinian cause. 

In many cases, the BoP can be seen as a direct extension of the Abraham Accords in terms of normalizing relationships between countries such as Pakistan and Indonesia, which previously denied Israel’s existence as a country because of their dedication to the Palestinian cause. For many Middle Eastern states, normalization with Israel did not appear because of the BoP, but rather through pre-existing trade and tourism agreements set initially through Abraham Accords. The BoP seeks to involve Gulf nations and others in the reconstruction and management of Gaza, reinforcing a new regional order centered on economic ties rather than any political resolution for Palestinians. Similar to the Abraham Accords, the BoP does not establish any grounds for Palestinian governance and bypasses a long-term solution to the Palestinian question; it is designed to set a new technocratic framework for Gaza’s administration, involving outside regional actors like the UAE, and further hindering the movement for Palestinian sovereignty.