European officials are beginning to coordinate with the Trump-led Board of Peace on humanitarian initiatives within the Gaza Strip. This development, revealed during the U.N. General Assembly, signals a pragmatic shift toward working with the new body despite significant institutional skepticism.
Dubravka Šuica and the pivot to two joint Gaza projects
The European Commission is signaling a tactical shift in its Gaza strategy by partnering with the Board of Peace on humanitarian initiatives. During a briefing at the U.N. General Assembly, European Commissioner for the Mediterranean Dubravka Šuica announced that Europe would fund two specific projects in coordination with U.N. agencies and the Board of Peace. As the report notes, this collaboration aims to address the massive early recovery needs required on the ground in the Gaza Strip.
This move marks a departure from the initial reaction to the Board of Peace, which was announced in February and largely shunned by European nations. the European Commission has stated that given the scale of the crisis, coordination across all levels is necessary to deliver aid effectively, even if the partnership remains controversial among member states.
Norway’s refusal to transfer funds directly to the Board of Peace
While the European Commission is moving toward engagement, some nations are maintaining a strict distance from the Board of Peace's financial structure. Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide stated in an interview that while traditional donors are willing to work in parallel with the body, they will not transfer money directly to it. Eide expressed a preference for working through established institutions like the World Bank rather than the new Trump-backed entity.
The skepticism is fueled by a lack of transparency regarding the Board of Peace's internal operations. According to the report,the organization does not publish an organizational chart or a formal budget , and it maintains separate holdings at JPMorgan Chase. This opacity makes many European and Norwegian donors hesitant to grant the Board direct control over reconstruction capital.
The Board of Peace’s claim of 500 trained troops and ceasefire progress
The Board of Peace maintains that it is already delivering tangible results, despite being viewed by some as a political vehicle for Donald Trump's allies. The organization claims to have already trained 500 troops for the International Stabilization Force, a U.N.-authorized body intended to stabilize Gaza and oversee its demilitarization. Furthermore, the Board points to its role in negotiating a nominal ceasefire and the release of Israeli hostages, a development that President Trump highlighted in his recent address to the General Assembly.
Ali Shaath, who leads the Board of Peace's Palestinian technocratic committee,argued at the Wednesday event that the body is essential for bringing order to a fragmented Gaza. The committee is intended to eventually govern the enclave, a goal that remains highly ambitious and largely unproven on the ground.
The unresolved tension between the Board and Israeli equipment restrictions
A significant gap remains between the Board of Peace's administrative ambitions and the operational reality of the blockade in Gaza. while UNRWA's interim head, Christian Saunders, suggested that the Board is becoming "the one game in town," the ability to actually rebuild remains in doubt. A major unanswered question is whether the Board can facilitate any meaningful reconstruction while Israel continues to restrict the entry of heavy equipment into the territory.
Amjad Iraqi of the International Crisis Group noted that while the Board may serve as a gateway to Washington, the ultimate control over what enters Gaza remains with Israel. Israel has maintained that it will not permit reconstruction equipment to enter until Hamas disarms, leaving the Board's long-term effectiveness as a governing body unverified. Additionally, the extent to which the Board's private communications with Israel regarding civilian casualties can influence military strikes remains a point of intense debate among diplomats.
Comments 0