What is the end goal of the Board of Peace?
Executive summary
The Board of Peace is presented by its architects as an international body to shepherd Gaza from war to reconstruction—mobilizing funds, supervising a technocratic Gaza administration, overseeing disarmament and an international stabilization force, and providing strategic oversight for a broader agenda of global conflict resolution [1] [2] [3]. Critics warn the charter concentrates extraordinary powers in a single chairman, risks undermining the United Nations and established multilateral norms, and could extend beyond Gaza into a new U.S.-led global peace apparatus [4] [5] [6].
1. What the charter says the Board’s end goal is
According to the White House and the Board’s charter, the explicit end goal is to implement the President’s 20-point plan to end the Gaza conflict by providing strategic oversight, mobilizing international resources, ensuring accountability during Gaza’s transition from conflict to peace and development, and promoting stability, governance and prosperity in affected areas [1] [2] [7]. The charter gives the Board legal personality and authorities to raise and disburse funds, enter contracts, and create subsidiary entities—tools framed as necessary to pursue these reconstruction and governance objectives [7].
2. How that translates into concrete missions on the ground
Reporting and encyclopedic summaries describe concrete tasks: supervising a transitional technocratic Palestinian administration—the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG); working toward the disarmament of Hamas; deploying an International Stabilization Force (ISF) to train a new Palestinian police; and overseeing reconstruction and basic services in Gaza [3] [2] [8]. The United Nations Security Council has welcomed or authorized elements of this framework, including a mandate tied to Gaza in Resolution 2803, which references the Board’s role and the possibility of an ISF [8] [9].
3. The wider geopolitical and institutional ambitions implied
Although launched with Gaza as the immediate focus, multiple outlets note the charter’s language and statements by U.S. officials envision the Board as a template or vehicle for resolving other conflicts and “promoting peace around the world” [10] [6] [5]. Britannica and Reuters report the authors’ aim that the Board “promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict,” indicating an ambition beyond a single territory [2] [10].
4. Powers, funding, and the controversy over who controls the end state
The charter centralizes considerable authority in the chairman—veto power over decisions, agenda control, the ability to invite or remove members, to dissolve the board, and to designate a successor—raising concerns that the end goal could become personalized governance or a U.S.-dominated mechanism rather than a multilateral instrument [4] [7]. Reports that states are being asked to pay up to $1 billion for permanent seats further signal an institutional design that ties influence to funding, which critics say could skew whose priorities define “peace” and “reconstruction” [11] [12].
5. Competing perspectives on whether the Board’s end goal is achievable or legitimate
Proponents—including the White House and allied capitals who have signed on—frame the Board as a pragmatic mechanism to ensure ceasefire terms are honored, deliver reconstruction, and demonstrate a new model of international cooperation led by elected figures and partner states [1] [6]. Opponents, including some European governments and international law scholars, argue the Board’s concentration of authority, potential to rival or bypass U.N. processes, and expansionary language undermine established multilateral order and risk imposing solutions without broad legitimacy [4] [6] [5]. The U.N. endorsement of the Board’s Gaza-specific role in Resolution 2803 is fact, but that resolution is time-limited and framed around Gaza, leaving open disputes about the Board’s authority beyond 2027 or outside Gaza [8] [10].
6. Bottom line: the stated endpoint and the political reality shaping it
The Board’s stated endpoint is a stabilized, reconstructed Gaza under accountable governance and a model for resolving other conflicts—achieved by disarmament, an international stabilization force, supervised technocratic governance and massive resource mobilization [1] [3] [2]. Whether that endpoint becomes a durable international public good or an instrument of concentrated geopolitical influence depends on who joins, who pays, how the chairman’s sweeping powers are used, and whether the U.N. and key states accept the Board’s broader ambitions beyond its Gaza mandate [7] [4] [6].