Gaza peace plan: Trump’s proposal threatens to undermine UN
The Tribune Editorial: The concept challenges the relevance of international institutions — most notably the United Nations
THE Gaza “Board of Peace” proposed by US President Donald Trump is in sync with his preference for ambitious deal-making outside traditional multilateral frameworks. Projected as a pragmatic, business-like mechanism to stabilise Gaza, the concept implicitly challenges the relevance of international institutions — most notably the United Nations — in managing one of the world’s most intractable conflicts. At its core, the proposal demonstrates Trump’s scepticism about the UN, which he has repeatedly criticised as inefficient, biased and overly bureaucratic. The “Board of Peace”, especially if it is dominated by select regional powers or US-aligned actors, would signal a shift from universal multilateralism to ad hoc governance.
Peace imposed without legitimacy, consent and accountability rarely survives. Any credible peace effort must grapple with realities Trump often sidesteps: international law, civilian protection and the need for inclusive governance. If the Gaza initiative prioritises optics over substance — or economic promises over political rights — it risks becoming another plan that collapses under the weight of ground reality. The test for the Gaza board is simple. Does it amplify local voices, reduce violence in measurable ways and create durable pathways to dignity and security for all? Without those anchors, the proposal will be remembered not as a breakthrough, but as yet another slogan in a conflict that has caused prolonged suffering.
Countries like India, which has been invited to join the board, have traditionally supported a two-state solution while balancing strong ties with Israel and the Arab world. A weakened UN system complicates India’s diplomatic calculus, as New Delhi often relies on multilateral forums to promote stability without direct intervention. Ultimately, the Gaza idea reflects the Trump-induced churn in global politics. If efforts to restore normalcy sideline the UN, they may move faster — but they risk eroding the very international framework needed to sustain peace once the deal is done.






