CAIRO, Feb. 20 (Xinhua) -- The U.S.-led "Board of Peace," proposed as a mechanism to oversee post-war arrangements in the Gaza Strip, is drawing concerns from regional analysts regarding its structure, mandate, and its capacity to effectively address Palestinian rights.
While any sincere efforts aimed at resolving the Gaza conflict are commendable, experts are concerned that the board could turn into a "one-man show" that disregards international law, overlooks Palestinian rights, and risks widening global divisions rather than providing a just resolution.
"ONE-MAN SHOW"
The board, which reportedly offers U.S. President Donald Trump lifetime leadership, has been described by experts as a personalized instrument rather than a legitimate international mechanism capable of handling complex political conflicts.
Analysts suggest that the initiative may be designed to reflect Washington's own strategic priorities, using Gaza to further broader geopolitical, economic, and even domestic political interests, rather than serving as a neutral means of conflict resolution.
"The board is linked to a person more than it is linked to an international system," said Maged Botros, a political science professor at Helwan University in Egypt, adding that this means its continuity is tied to a single person rather than to an institutional framework.
Trump formally launched the "Board of Peace" on Jan. 22 at a charter-signing ceremony during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The move has sparked concerns that it could erode the authority of the United Nations and undermine the established multilateral peacekeeping framework. Some major global powers and traditional U.S. allies have also chosen not to join the board.
"Politically, it is a one-man show," Botros said.
Similarly, Tarek Fahmy, a political science professor at Cairo University in Egypt, described the board as "Trump's Board, not a peace council in the global sense," warning that it lacks institutional legitimacy and is not binding on future U.S. administrations.
Both experts stressed that such a board cannot replace the United Nations, "an international organization based on a comprehensive charter and collective legitimacy."
PALESTINIAN RIGHTS OVERLOOKED
Another concern raised by analysts is that the board fails to incorporate Palestinian rights or political representation, leading to worries that reconstruction efforts could move forward without addressing the core political issues of the conflict.
Botros stressed that Palestinian rights are rooted in international law, a foundation the board ignores in favor of "a personal initiative and an unpredictable decision made by one individual."
This approach, he cautioned, means outcomes will likely reflect "personal convictions and the balance of power," not legal rights.
Fahmy also highlighted that the absence of Palestinian representation at the board fuels skepticism and undermines the initiative's credibility from the start.
Botros said Trump's approach is driven by power considerations rather than legal or moral ones, arguing that decisions under the U.S.-led board are likely to align with Israel's interests, reflecting Washington's strategic calculus.
Fahmy echoed this assessment, cautioning that the board could deepen regional divisions, potentially destabilizing regional order rather than fostering peace.
"Dividing the world on the basis of 'those who are not with us are against us' will shake global stability, not achieve peace," he stressed.
Both experts agreed that the board's effectiveness is further clouded by potential political and financial constraints in the United States, including possible congressional opposition.
The board's role remains unclear, said Fahmy, pointing to contradictions between U.S. officials' peace rhetoric and their inflammatory actions, which could turn it into "a symbolic body rather than a real one."
"If we ask directly whether this will solve Gaza in a way that aligns with the rights of the Palestinian people, the answer is no," Botros said. ■