By Atiq Raja
The Israel–Palestine conflict has endured longer than most of the institutions meant to resolve it. Decades of diplomacy, resolutions, peace conferences, and international envoys have produced little more than a cycle of hope and frustration. Every few years, a new initiative promises a “final solution,” only to see history repeat itself. In this context, the idea of a “Board of Peace or Power,” linked to Donald Trump’s unconventional diplomacy, has sparked intense debate. Some view it as a bold attempt to break a deadlock; others see it as a dangerous circumvention of international law.
The debate goes beyond personalities. It touches the core of how global power is exercised in the twenty-first century. Why, some ask, was an alternative to the United Nations even considered? The UN has passed dozens of resolutions on Israel–Palestine, particularly through the Security Council and General Assembly. Yet, the realities on the ground remain largely unchanged. Critics argue that the UN has become paralyzed by veto politics, particularly within the Security Council, issuing symbolic resolutions with little mechanism for enforcement. Many powerful states view the institution as biased, slow, or ineffective.
Trump’s diplomatic philosophy, first visible in the Abraham Accords, was built on a blunt assumption: peace is not achieved through moral consensus, but through leverage. From this perspective, a smaller, power-centric forum appeared more practical than a 193-member institution struggling to agree even on language, let alone action. A “Board of Peace or Power,” as critics have labelled it, is intended to concentrate influence in the hands of those who can act decisively.
The idea is simple: those with real influence, rather than moral arguments, should make the decisions. Supporters argue that the conflict requires economic pressure, security guarantees, and political incentives—not endless resolutions. Regional stakeholders with direct influence, they say, matter more than distant observers. A smaller group can move faster, negotiate harder, and implement solutions more effectively. Critics counter that this approach risks turning peace into a transaction, sidelining justice, human rights, and international law. Peace, they warn, should not be bought or enforced by power alone.
The composition of such a board, even hypothetically, is controversial. Likely participants would include the United States as principal broker, Israel as a central party, and selected Arab states aligned with U.S. regional strategy. Palestinian leadership, lacking leverage or unified representation, would likely be sidelined. Similarly, countries that insist on UN-led processes or that are critical of U.S. unilateralism might be excluded. This selective inclusion raises a fundamental question: can peace be sustainable if one of the principal parties feels imposed upon rather than represented?
From a legal standpoint, states are free to pursue bilateral or multilateral initiatives outside the UN. Forming ad hoc diplomatic mechanisms is not prohibited. Problems arise, however, when outcomes contradict existing UN resolutions, ignore principles such as self-determination, or bypass established legal frameworks. In these cases, initiatives may be politically legal but morally and normatively contested. They operate in a grey zone between power politics and international legitimacy.
The central critique of a “Board of Peace or Power” is that it risks redefining peace as acceptance of the status quo under pressure, rather than reconciliation based on justice. History offers cautionary lessons. Peace imposed by power may bring temporary calm. Peace grounded in legitimacy, however, has a far better chance of long-term survival. The Israel–Palestine conflict is not simply a territorial dispute. It is historical, emotional, legal, and deeply human. Any framework that sidelines these dimensions may succeed diplomatically yet fail socially.
Trump-style diplomacy undeniably challenges a tired and often ineffective system. The UN’s limitations are real, and the need for innovation is pressing. But innovation without inclusion risks replacing one failure with another. Diplomacy built around power alone may produce headlines, but it rarely produces lasting solutions. The danger is that shortcuts in the name of efficiency may sacrifice justice, legitimacy, and social cohesion.
The challenge, therefore, is not whether power-driven forums should exist, but whether they can coexist with international law, human dignity, and the principles of fairness that underpin sustainable peace. A Board of Peace that ignores these considerations risks being remembered less as a breakthrough and more as an illustration of global power prioritising convenience over consensus. In practice, peace cannot be coerced; it must be negotiated, understood, and accepted by those most affected.
(The writer is a rights activist and CEO of AR Trainings and Consultancy, with degrees in Political Science and English Literature, can be reached at editorial@metro-morning.com)
