The initiative, closely associated with former US President Donald Trump, represents a significant departure from established international conflict-resolution frameworks.
Pakistan was among approximately 20 states that signed on as founding participants. Notably, several traditional US allies, particularly from Western Europe, chose not to join, citing concerns over the board’s mandate, structure, and its departure from United Nations–led processes.
Origins and Stated Objectives
The Board of Peace was originally conceived as a mechanism to address the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, where large-scale Israeli military operations since late 2023 have caused widespread destruction. According to UN agencies, much of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed, and reconstruction costs are expected to run into tens of billions of dollars.
Under the framework articulated by Mr Trump, however, the board’s mandate has expanded beyond Gaza. Its leadership has suggested that the BoP could serve as a template for addressing other international conflicts, positioning it as a new form of executive multilateralism focused on stabilization and reconstruction rather than political negotiation.
Critics argue that such expansion is premature, given that lasting peace in Gaza has not yet been achieved, and fundamental political questions including sovereignty, occupation, and accountability remain unresolved.
Pakistan’s Rationale and Domestic Criticism
Pakistan’s decision to join the board has sparked considerable debate at home, particularly given Islamabad’s long-standing support for the Palestinian cause and its refusal to recognize Israel. Government officials have defended the move as a “pragmatic” and strategic decision, arguing that participation allows Pakistan to influence outcomes from within rather than remain a bystander.
Officials have also suggested that Pakistan may be able to contribute more effectively to Palestinian relief efforts by engaging directly in decision-making related to reconstruction, humanitarian access, and post-conflict governance.
Alongside Pakistan, several Muslim-majority states, including Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Egypt, have also joined the BoP. Their collective presence is seen as a potential counterweight to concerns that the board may otherwise reflect a predominantly pro-Israel orientation.
Expectations from Muslim Member States
For participating Muslim states, the immediate priority remains the rehabilitation of Gaza and the unrestricted flow of humanitarian aid. International organizations have repeatedly warned that aid delivery remains inconsistent, with shortages of food, medicine, fuel, and clean water continuing to affect civilians.
Beyond reconstruction, there is growing emphasis on the need for a clear political roadmap leading to a sovereign Palestinian state, consistent with longstanding international positions and Pakistan’s official foreign policy stance. The Foreign Office has reiterated that any sustainable peace framework must address Palestinian self-determination.
Continuing Violence and Credibility Concerns
Despite an ongoing ceasefire that came into effect in October, violence in Gaza has not ceased. According to local and international reports, Israeli forces have continued operations in the territory. Notably, at least 11 Palestinians, including three journalists, were killed just one day before the BoP signing ceremony in Switzerland. Cumulative figures indicate that more than 460 Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire began, raising serious questions about the durability of the truce and the effectiveness of international oversight mechanisms.
For critics, these developments undermine the credibility of any peace initiative that fails to restrain ongoing military action or ensure civilian protection.
The Board of Peace represents an ambitious attempt to reshape how international conflicts are managed, prioritizing stabilization and reconstruction over traditional diplomacy. If it succeeds in delivering peace and justice for Palestinians, it would achieve what many previous initiatives have failed to do. However, without credible pressure on Israel to halt military operations, respect ceasefire commitments, and engage in a genuine political process, the board risks being perceived as symbolic rather than transformative. For Pakistan and other Muslim participants, the challenge lies in ensuring that engagement translates into concrete protection for Palestinian rights rather than lending legitimacy to a framework that leaves the root causes of the conflict unaddressed.
