Signing Onto Trump’s “Board of Peace”, 8 Prominent Islamic Nations Dilute Their Gaza Moral Stand – Alfaaz – The Words

Alfaaz – The Words Desk

Srinagar: Eight Islamic nations viz. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates, have reportedly agreed to join United States President Donald Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace” for Gaza, becoming early participants in a US-led initiative aimed at overseeing post-war governance, reconstruction and regional coordination.

The decision, announced through a joint statement by the foreign ministers of the participating countries, places them among the first to formally endorse the board, even as several other nations have either declined to join or are yet to take a position amid the fragile and unresolved nature of the Israel-Gaza conflict.

However, the move has sharply undercut the credibility of these countries’ own stated positions on Gaza. Despite consistently calling for an immediate ceasefire and publicly accusing Israel of serious human rights violations, these nations have chosen to back a mechanism conceived by President Trump, whose administration has been Israel’s principal military, diplomatic and political patron throughout the war.

President Trump has continued to arm Israel, shield it from international censure, and block sustained accountability even as civilian casualties mounted and humanitarian conditions in Gaza deteriorated. By endorsing a Trump-designed framework, the eight countries have effectively aligned themselves with an initiative led by the very government that has enabled Israel’s military campaign.

The “Board of Peace,” unveiled as part of phase two of a fragile ceasefire arrangement, is intended to function as a transitional administrative authority for Gaza. Yet it remains undefined in mandate, accountability and neutrality, and lacks clear assurances of Palestinian agency or multilateral oversight independent of Washington.

The contradiction is stark. While condemning Israel’s actions and invoking international law, these countries have simultaneously lent legitimacy to a structure shaped by Israel’s foremost ally. Their early endorsement risks weakening collective diplomatic pressure, diluting demands for accountability, and reducing Gaza’s future to a US-managed political project.

As uncertainty continues to surround the ceasefire and Gaza’s post-war future, the decision by these eight Islamic nations to sign on first, while others hold back, raises serious questions about consistency, judgment and the gap between public rhetoric and diplomatic action.