Residents of Gaza are responding with caution and deep skepticism after the United States announced the creation of a so-called “Board of Peace,” a new body proposed under President Donald Trump’s latest plan aimed at reshaping the future governance and security of the Gaza Strip.
According to U.S. officials, the Board of Peace would consist of international representatives, regional stakeholders, and appointed administrators tasked with overseeing reconstruction, humanitarian aid distribution, and long-term political stabilization in Gaza following months of devastating conflict. Washington has framed the initiative as a pathway toward peace, security, and economic recovery.
However, on the ground in Gaza, the announcement has been met with uncertainty and distrust. Many Palestinians view the plan as externally imposed, raising concerns that it sidelines Palestinian self-determination while prioritizing foreign strategic interests. Critics argue that previous international interventions have failed to deliver lasting stability and often ignored the political realities faced by Gazans.
Local residents and analysts say the name “Board of Peace” rings hollow amid ongoing displacement, destroyed infrastructure, and a humanitarian crisis that continues to unfold. “Peace cannot be managed by a board created without our consent,” said one Gaza-based academic, reflecting a widely held sentiment that legitimacy must come from local participation, not foreign appointment.
Trump’s proposal reportedly envisions the Board operating independently of Hamas while coordinating closely with Israel and key regional allies. U.S. officials insist the body would focus on rebuilding Gaza’s economy, restoring essential services, and preventing future violence. Supporters of the plan argue that a new governance structure is necessary given the scale of destruction and the failure of existing political frameworks.
Yet skepticism remains strong. Palestinian leaders have questioned whether the Board of Peace would effectively place Gaza under international trusteeship, stripping residents of political agency. Others fear it could serve as a mechanism to entrench long-term foreign control while postponing meaningful discussions about statehood, borders, and sovereignty.
Regional reactions have been mixed. Some Arab governments cautiously welcomed any initiative aimed at reducing violence and improving humanitarian conditions, while emphasizing that any solution must respect Palestinian rights. International aid organizations also expressed concern, warning that governance experiments risk complicating already fragile relief efforts if not carefully coordinated.
Human rights groups have urged transparency, accountability, and inclusion, stressing that Gazans themselves must play a central role in shaping their future. They warn that without local buy-in, even well-funded reconstruction plans could fail or fuel further resentment.
Within the United States, Trump’s plan has sparked political debate. Supporters praise the proposal as bold and pragmatic, arguing that traditional peace processes have repeatedly collapsed. Critics counter that imposing a governance structure from abroad risks repeating past mistakes and undermining prospects for a durable peace.
As details of the Board of Peace remain limited, uncertainty continues to dominate reactions in Gaza. For many residents, daily survival takes precedence over diplomatic announcements made thousands of miles away.
The coming weeks will determine whether Trump’s plan evolves into a genuine framework for stability or becomes another controversial chapter in the long and complex struggle over Gaza’s future.
Watch video below :
