Trump Sidelines UN In Gaza Gambit

Trump just tried to rebuild Gaza by sidelining the usual global referees and betting everything on one brutal prerequisite: Hamas disarms, or nothing works.

Quick Take

Trump convened a new “Board of Peace” in Washington on Feb. 19, 2026, drawing roughly 45 nations with at least 27 designated board members.
Countries pledged at least $5 billion for Gaza reconstruction; the UAE and Kuwait each committed $1.2 billion.
The board deliberately departs from UN-centered diplomacy and excludes Palestinian political representation, leaning on “technocratic” governance instead.
The plan’s hinge point is Hamas demilitarization; analysts warn failure means partition, occupation, or another war cycle.

A New Forum Built to Replace Old Habits, Not Old Conflicts

Trump’s inaugural Board of Peace meeting in Washington aimed to do two things at once: organize money for Gaza’s postwar rebuild and redesign the diplomatic machinery that usually manages Middle East crises. The attendance list signaled scale—representatives from about 45 nations—and the structure signaled intent: a U.S.-anchored coalition, not a UN-driven process. That choice puts speed and control over broad legitimacy, and it invites a fight over what “peace” means in practice.

The board’s most striking feature isn’t the money; it’s the architecture. Palestinian representation was excluded, and so were other permanent UN Security Council members besides the United States. That sends a blunt message: Washington wants fewer veto points, fewer speeches, and more enforceable commitments. That approach fits a conservative, results-first instinct—stop funding failure and start demanding measurable outcomes—but it also raises an unavoidable question: who speaks for ordinary Gazans when politics gets replaced by “management?”

The Money Is Real, the Delivery System Is Not

The meeting produced headline numbers: at least $5 billion pledged for reconstruction, with the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait each committing $1.2 billion. Big pledges matter because rubble removal, power restoration, water systems, and basic housing burn cash fast. The missing piece is the plumbing: what triggers disbursement, who signs contracts, and how donors verify projects don’t become a subsidy pipeline for extremists. Without tight auditing and enforceable conditions, “reconstruction” can turn into a recycled fraud story.

Trump’s initiative lands in a ceasefire environment that still looks like a ceasefire on paper and a war rhythm on the ground. Israel and Hamas continued accusing each other of violations, while Israel maintained near-daily strikes it described as targeting Hamas threats. At the same time, humanitarian access remained inconsistent. The Rafah crossing saw partial opening earlier in February 2026, enabling medical evacuations and limited returns, but a handful of planned missions were reportedly blocked by Israeli decisions or security risks.

Technocrats Sound Safe Until You Ask Who Protects Them

The board’s governance concept leans technocratic: administrators focused on day-to-day services rather than factional politics. In theory, that’s the cleanest way to rebuild utilities, hospitals, and schools without awarding a propaganda victory to militants. In practice, technocrats need physical access, security guarantees, and authority to make decisions. Israel reportedly has not permitted members of a U.S.-backed technocratic committee to enter Gaza, a detail that exposes the basic dilemma: you can’t run a territory you can’t enter.

That obstacle also reveals an uncomfortable truth about postwar governance: everyone wants “competent civilians” to manage Gaza, but nobody wants to take responsibility for keeping them alive and in control. Technocratic governance can reduce corruption and create measurable performance, which aligns with common-sense public administration. Yet it risks becoming a façade if armed actors still decide what moves, what gets built, and who gets punished. Power doesn’t disappear; it just relocates to whoever holds coercive force.

The Demilitarization شرط: The Plan’s Single Point of Failure

Analysts Dennis Ross and David Makovsky tied the board’s credibility to one variable: Hamas disarmament. Their logic is hard to argue with. If disarmament takes hold, a pathway toward Palestinian self-determination and even statehood starts looking less like a slogan and more like a sequenced deal. If Hamas refuses, they warn Gaza could remain partitioned, locked under tyranny or occupation, or simply slide back into full-scale war. One hinge, enormous consequences.

From a conservative perspective, that conditionality is the plan’s most defensible feature. No serious American voter wants to underwrite a rebuild that leaves terror infrastructure intact or rewards hostage-taking and rocket fire. Conditioning statehood talk and reconstruction access on demilitarization matches the basic logic Americans apply at home: you don’t rebuild a neighborhood while arsonists still control the block. The problem is enforcement. Disarmament isn’t a press release; it’s verification, confiscation, and sustained pressure.

Why Bypassing the UN Might Work—and Why It Might Backfire

Ambassador Mike Waltz framed the board as a response to “old ways” that “were not working.” The critique resonates with anyone who has watched international bodies produce statements instead of security. A smaller, U.S.-led coalition can move faster, demand accountability, and align reconstruction with counterterror goals. Still, legitimacy gaps can become security gaps. Excluding Palestinian political representation risks turning governance into an external imposition, and imposed systems tend to crack the moment donors tire or attention shifts.

The board now faces a blunt test that money can’t solve: can it translate pledges into controlled access, monitored reconstruction, and a credible security transition while the ceasefire remains fragile? If the answer is yes, the board becomes a template for pragmatic diplomacy that prizes outcomes over process. If the answer is no, it becomes another grand conference that produced numbers and photos while Gaza’s future stayed trapped between militants, mistrust, and hard borders.

Trump Hosts Inaugural 'Board of Peace' Meeting, Announces $10 Billion U.S. Contributionhttps://t.co/TVTfnIEgsC

— RedState (@RedState) February 19, 2026

Americans should judge the Board of Peace by two measurable results, not by rhetoric: whether humanitarian operations expand without empowering Hamas, and whether reconstruction dollars flow only after verifiable demilitarization steps. Trump’s bet is that a redesigned table can force disciplined choices from donors, Israel, and regional players. The risk is that the table becomes the story while the ground reality stays the same. Gaza doesn’t need another forum; it needs enforceable conditions.