3 hours ago
3
In Gaza, aid still trickles in at levels relief agencies say are far below what is required. Temporary shelters are scarce. Reconstruction materials are restricted by Israel’s controls on goods entering the territory. Conditions, say the UN, remain “dire”. The violence has not stopped: Israeli strikes on Gaza have killed about 600 people since the ceasefire began. The announcement that the US would transfer $10bn to President Donald Trump’s newly convened Board of Peace is hard to reconcile with the reality on the ground. Even worse is that Washington has paid only a fraction of its UN arrears – $160m against more than $4bn owed.
This raises the obvious question: why is a private initiative being capitalised so heavily while existing UN mechanisms remain severely cash-strapped? Funnelling state funds into a body chaired by Mr Trump suggests foreign policy is serving private interests, not the public good. The board has ambitious plans. Rafah is to be rebuilt within three years with skyscrapers. Gaza is to become self-governing within a decade. An International Stabilisation Force is expected to begin deployment, eventually numbering 20,000 troops. These are dramatic claims. But their delivery is largely notional.
Worryingly, there’s no clear legal authority defining the board’s mandate. Last November’s UN security council resolution authorised the board solely for Gaza as a temporary, two-year transitional administration. Mr Trump – who holds veto power in the board and the authority to interpret its remit – thinks otherwise. He claims it can intervene in other global conflicts. The board is not embedded within existing UN structures, perhaps intentionally sidestepping the lengthy coalition-building with regional partners. If its objective is to generate headlines, then the board has succeeded. The question is whether the guardrails are keeping pace with the public relations.
In a recent European Council on Foreign Relations paper, Muhammad Shehada argues that the US’s top-down, externally designed economic model risks remaking Gaza as a tightly managed enclave – with Palestinians restricted to new heavily surveilled compounds while the strip is dotted with residential towers, datacentres and seaside resorts. Mr Shehada is not wrong when he says Mr Trump’s plan poses a blunt question: is Gaza the home of its people – or a prize for outside powers and profiteers? Palestinians are not getting much of a say, yet the answer will shape their future.
Gaza lies in ruins. What unfolded, many experts say, was a genocide. Yet Benjamin Netanyahu’s government claims the mission is unfinished and is signalling a new offensive if Hamas does not disarm – possibly before Israel’s election this year. This may fit the letter of the UN resolution, but it shreds its logic. Clearly, Palestinians must have a believable path to sovereignty. Hanging over all of this is the most unpredictable wild card: the threat of US military action against Iran within days if negotiations fail. Tehran says American bases would be legitimate targets if it is attacked.
Peace in Gaza requires regional calm, Israeli restraint, Palestinian legitimacy and institutional credibility. Yet the US – operating through personalised diplomacy – contemplates war against Iran because it won’t give up its nuclear enrichment programme while encouraging Riyadh to adopt one. Any stable peace demands patience and predictability. Escalatory threats invite conflagration. In Gaza, that contradiction is already visible, and it is potentially explosive.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
