Case Study: The Trump “Board of Peace” Initiative
Background Context
The US-backed Gaza peace plan entered its first phase on October 10, 2025, successfully facilitating the return of hostages held by Hamas and establishing a ceasefire after prolonged conflict. By January 2026, the initiative transitioned into its critical second phase with the announcement of the Board of Peace.
Key Stakeholders and Structure
Governance Architecture:
- Board of Peace: US-led oversight body chaired by President Trump, with members yet to be announced
- Palestinian Technocratic Committee: 15-member body responsible for day-to-day governance in post-war Gaza
- International Stabilization Force: Proposed deployment to secure Gaza and train vetted Palestinian police units
- Regional Mediators: Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar supporting demilitarization negotiations
Critical Challenges
Security Impasse: The plan faces fundamental tensions between competing demands. Israel insists on complete Hamas disarmament as a non-negotiable condition, while Hamas has refused to publicly commit to surrendering weapons. Meanwhile, Palestinians demand a full Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza, yet no concrete timetable has been established for such a withdrawal.
Implementation Gaps: Despite the ceasefire ostensibly being in effect, Gaza’s health ministry reports 451 deaths from Israeli military action since October 10, raising questions about enforcement mechanisms and accountability. The credibility gap between stated peace objectives and ground realities undermines trust among all parties.
Leadership Vacuum: Hamas is preparing internal elections for early 2026 to rebuild leadership decimated during the conflict. This leadership transition introduces uncertainty about future negotiating partners and Hamas’s strategic direction, complicating efforts to secure binding commitments on disarmament.
Outlook: Scenarios and Trajectories
Optimistic Scenario: Gradual Stabilization (30% probability)
If the Board of Peace successfully coordinates international pressure and incentives, a pathway emerges where Hamas gradually disarms in exchange for concrete withdrawal timelines and economic reconstruction support. The technocratic committee gains legitimacy by delivering basic services, while the International Stabilization Force creates security conditions that allow Palestinian civil society to rebuild. Regional partners Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar provide economic lifelines that make peaceful governance more attractive than continued resistance.
Timeline: 18-24 months for substantial weapons surrender and tunnel dismantlement; 3-5 years for full normalization.
Most Likely Scenario: Managed Instability (50% probability)
The ceasefire holds in fragmented form, with periodic flare-ups contained through international mediation. Hamas maintains hidden weapons caches while publicly cooperating with selective disarmament, creating a grey zone between war and peace. Israeli forces conduct periodic operations citing security concerns, while the technocratic committee struggles with limited authority and resources. The Board of Peace becomes primarily a diplomatic forum rather than an executive body, managing rather than resolving the core conflict.
Timeline: Indefinite low-intensity stalemate with periodic crises requiring renewed mediation.
Pessimistic Scenario: Ceasefire Collapse (20% probability)
Fundamental disagreements over disarmament and withdrawal timelines lead to breakdown in negotiations. A security incident triggers escalation, with Hamas citing continued Israeli presence as justification for retaining weapons, and Israel citing Hamas non-compliance as reason to maintain military control. The technocratic committee collapses without real authority, and the region returns to cyclical violence.
Timeline: Breakdown could occur within 6-12 months if early implementation milestones are missed.
Proposed Solutions
Phase 1: Establish Verification Mechanisms (Months 1-6)
Independent Monitoring Commission: Create a UN-mandated body with Egyptian, Qatari, and European Union representation to verify both Hamas disarmament and Israeli withdrawal in parallel. This addresses the trust deficit by ensuring neither party can claim the other is non-compliant without independent verification.
Transparent Timetables: Publish detailed, synchronized schedules linking weapons surrender to phased Israeli withdrawal. For example, each documented tunnel closure and weapons cache surrender triggers withdrawal from specified Gaza zones. Make these schedules public to create accountability pressure on all parties.
Phase 2: Empower Transitional Governance (Months 3-18)
Resource the Technocratic Committee: The international community must provide immediate funding for salary payments, basic services, and reconstruction. A committee without resources cannot build legitimacy. Establish an internationally-managed reconstruction fund with transparent disbursement tied to governance milestones.
Inclusive Political Process: While the technocratic committee manages daily affairs, facilitate broader Palestinian political dialogue including Gaza residents, West Bank leadership, and diaspora representatives. The committee needs a pathway to democratic legitimacy beyond technocratic expertise.
Phase 3: Regional Economic Integration (Months 12-36)
Gaza-Sinai Economic Zone: Develop a special economic zone at the Gaza-Egypt border with international investment, creating employment opportunities that make peace economically rational. Connect Gaza to regional supply chains through Egypt and Jordan.
Desalination and Energy Infrastructure: International partners should fund desalination plants and renewable energy facilities that provide Gaza with economic independence while creating shared interests in stability. Infrastructure projects also provide immediate employment during transition.
Phase 4: Security Transition (Months 18-48)
Phased Multinational Force Deployment: Begin with Arab League forces (Egypt, UAE, Jordan) who have greater regional acceptance, then gradually include European and Asian contingents. Avoid American or Israeli direct involvement in peacekeeping, which would undermine legitimacy.
Palestinian Security Sector Reform: Simultaneously recruit and train new Palestinian security forces vetted by multiple parties, with performance benchmarks that gradually transfer security responsibility from international forces to Palestinian authorities.
Singapore’s Impact and Interests
Direct Impacts
Geopolitical Positioning: Singapore maintains balanced relationships with both Israel and Arab states, a position that could be complicated if the peace process fractures and countries are pressured to choose sides. As a small state dependent on international law and multilateral norms, Singapore has interests in successful conflict resolution demonstrating that diplomacy can work.
Maritime Security: Instability in the Middle East affects global shipping routes, particularly through the Suez Canal and Red Sea, which are critical for Singapore’s trade-dependent economy. A genuine Gaza peace settlement would reduce regional tensions that could disrupt these vital corridors.
Singapore’s Iranian Community Concerns
The article references Iranians in Singapore being deeply upset over deadly protests in Iran with communications blackouts worsening anxiety. Iran is a key Hamas supporter, and Iranian domestic instability could affect Tehran’s willingness or capacity to influence Hamas behavior in Gaza negotiations. Singapore hosts diaspora communities with deep personal stakes in Middle Eastern stability.
Potential Constructive Roles
Neutral Convening Platform: Singapore has successfully hosted sensitive regional dialogues, including the 2018 Trump-Kim summit. The city-state could offer neutral territory for technical working groups under the Board of Peace, particularly on economic reconstruction planning where Singapore has genuine expertise.
Technical Assistance: Singapore’s experience in rapid development, port management, water security through desalination, and public housing could provide relevant models for Gaza reconstruction. Singaporean technical experts could advise the technocratic committee on governance systems, avoiding the political complications of US or European advisors.
Financial Hub Functions: Singapore’s position as a regional financial center could facilitate transparent management of international reconstruction funds, providing accountability mechanisms that build donor confidence and reduce corruption risks.
Track II Diplomacy: Singaporean think tanks and academic institutions could host informal dialogues bringing together Palestinian, Israeli, and regional experts in non-official capacities, creating space for creative solutions away from formal negotiating pressures.
Strategic Considerations for Singapore
Singapore should maintain its traditional neutrality while offering constructive technical support where appropriate. Any involvement should emphasize Singapore’s expertise in practical governance and economic development rather than political positioning. The key is providing value without appearing to take sides in a conflict where Singapore’s diverse population includes communities with strong connections to various Middle Eastern countries.
Conclusion
The Gaza Board of Peace represents an ambitious but fragile attempt to transform a ceasefire into sustainable peace. Success requires addressing the fundamental security-political tradeoffs through verifiable, synchronized implementation of commitments from all parties. International stakeholders, including smaller states like Singapore, have interests in supporting mechanisms that demonstrate conflict resolution through diplomacy rather than force.
The most critical period is the next 6-12 months. If early milestones around verification mechanisms and resource mobilization are achieved, the probability shifts toward managed stability. If implementation stalls or violence escalates significantly, the window for second-phase success may close, returning the region to familiar cycles of conflict.
For Singapore, the situation warrants careful monitoring given maritime security implications and opportunities to contribute technical expertise in areas of genuine competence while maintaining balanced relationships across the region.