President Donald Trump launched a new international body in Washington last week, dubbed the Board of Peace, which he says will spearhead his broader vision for global peace, beginning with Gaza and potentially extending to other conflict zones. Trump described the board as "the most significant international body in history," intended to replace what he views as the failed and ineffective United Nations.
According to Trump's plan, the Board of Peace will oversee the stabilization of the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, the deployment of international forces there and the establishment of an alternative civilian government to replace Hamas. Above all, it is meant to supervise the disarmament of Hamas. Only after that, the board would initiate a large-scale reconstruction effort.
As often happens with Trump-led initiatives, the launch was a high-profile media event attended by leaders from around the world, many eager to align themselves with the US president and appear in the official photograph. But the gap between the spectacle in Washington and the reality on the ground in Gaza could hardly be wider.
On paper, billions of dollars in pledges have been secured for Gaza's reconstruction, and a multinational force is reportedly in the process of being assembled. Yet it remains doubtful whether any of this will materialize. The key to everything has always been, and remains, the dismantling of Hamas' military capabilities.
True, various international actors are speaking on Hamas' behalf, committing in its name that the group will lay down its arms and relinquish control of Gaza. In practice, however, no Hamas official has made such a declaration. On the contrary, the organization's spokesmen have repeatedly stressed their determination to retain their weapons and their refusal to disarm. On the ground, Hamas continues rebuilding its strength under the cover of the quiet afforded by the ceasefire.
Much of the international community, and apparently the Americans as well, seem untroubled by this reality. The priority, it appears, is maintaining the illusion of calm and showing signs of progress, in the hope that launching reconstruction will generate momentum among Gaza's residents and eventually compel Hamas to yield. Anyone familiar with Gaza and the broader Middle East knows this is wishful thinking.
The process is moving forward, and Israel is not standing in its way. Instead, it is quietly murmuring, perhaps to itself, that Hamas' disarmament is a red line. It is doubtful anyone is listening. More troubling still, Israel does not appear to have a clear course of action in response to current developments in Gaza. The country risks walking knowingly into a trap: a reality in which Hamas continues to rule the Strip under the umbrella of Trump's initiative, while Israel refrains from responding.
This recalls the period following Israel's 2005 disengagement from Gaza, when it withdrew its forces and transferred control to the Palestinian Authority in the hope that it would know how to confront Hamas. Worse, it evokes the situation on the eve of October 7, when Israel effectively accepted Hamas' rule in Gaza in exchange for relative quiet along the border.
Already, familiar arguments are resurfacing: that Hamas has been weakened and now seeks calm in order to rebuild Gaza. Some in Israel view this as a convenient reality, one that spares the government from making difficult decisions and taking decisive action. It is easier simply to go along with the current course.
Israel must define clear red lines from which it will not retreat, especially regarding the link between Hamas' disarmament and any progress on other issues in Gaza. It must also formulate an operational plan for what increasingly appears to be a realistic scenario: that what was in Gaza will remain in Gaza.
Failing to act now could make future action impossible, particularly once international forces and representatives of Trump's Board of Peace are deployed on the ground and reconstruction funds begin flowing into the Strip. If a confrontation with Trump becomes unavoidable, it would be better for Israel to face it on terms that suit its interests, rather than after all leverage has been lost.
For now, Hamas appears shrewd enough to keep a low profile and wait out the storm. Israel, however, cannot afford to accept a situation in which the terrorist organization retains its weapons and gradually reestablishes its presence as a perma
