Trump’s Board of Peace 11-page charter, comprising eight chapters and 13 articles, does not mention Gaza even once. This suggests lack of sincere intent on the part of the USA. It is acting on behalf of Israel and in Trump’s and his family interests.
Hamas has expressed conditional openness to an international peacekeeping force (or “Internal Security Force”) in Gaza, but with major caveats that directly challenge the “external control” aspect favoured by the US and Israel.
Hamas has strictly rejected foreign interference in the territory’s “internal affairs” and has opposed any international guardianship or mandate that includes disarming their fighters.
While agreeing to a technocratic committee for civil administration, Hamas is pushing to integrate its roughly 10,000-strong, existing police force into the new security structure.
Despite ceasefire agreements, Hamas has been quietly reasserting its grip by placing loyalists in key administrative and security roles.
In short, Hamas appears to accept a foreign presence that acts as a buffer against Israel but rejects an external force that replaces their control or disarms their personnel. They aim to retain their, or their affiliates’, role in the future, even under a nominally “independent” or “technocratic” governance. Hamas has asserted that any discussions on Gaza must begin with a total halt to Israeli “aggression”. Israel, in direct divergence, insists that Hamas disarm as a pre-condition to commencement of reconstruction. starts.
Hamas wants peacekeeping for and by Palestinians
Hamas spokesman Qassem stated unequivocally: “We want peacekeeping forces that monitor the ceasefire, ensure its implementation, and act as a buffer between the occupation army and our people in the Gaza Strip, without interfering in Gaza’s internal affairs.” Trump’s Board of Peace (BOP), by contrast, is in Gaza to colonise, plunder, and profit. The very composition of the Board and job descriptions assigned to key people to carry out key tasks obfuscate the real intent behind the BOP. To colonise and gradually corporatise Gaza.
The long-term plan is for the ISF to comprise 20,000 international soldiers and to train and support 12,000 local Palestinian police officers. Hamas is explicit in its understanding of the framework of capacity building. Training Palestinian police forces within their national framework is not a problem if it is aimed at maintaining internal security in the Strip and confronting the chaos that the occupation and its militias seek to create Hamas spokesperson Qassem will find non-negotiable.
Five countries have committed to providing troops to the ISF: Indonesia, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Albania. Egypt and Jordan have committed to training the Palestinian police officers thus fulfilling the need for Training and Logistics. Indonesia has agreed to be the deputy commander, with a significant commitment of troops (around 8,000 pledged).
Despite these arrangements, analysts disagree with the very foundations of the BOP. It has been met with doubts and indifference, as many countries expressed concerns that it could overlap or undermine the role of the United Nations. European Council President Antonio Costa said that the EU has serious doubts about many elements of the Board of Peace, including its scope, governance and compatibility with the UN Charter.
Moreover, Trump’s BOP 11-page charter, comprising eight chapters and 13 articles, does not mention Gaza even once. This suggests lack of sincere intent on the part of the USA. It is acting on behalf of Israel and in Trump’s and his family interests.
The plan’s second phase calls for the complete disarmament of Hamas and the destruction of its underground tunnel network, a core demand of Israel. While the Board of Peace aims to fundamentally alter the situation in Gaza to Israel’s benefit, its success depends on the effective implementation of the planned disarmament and the deployment of a stable security force. If this is about handing Gaza to Israel with a model of a Europea style ‘Riviera’, it can be considered a non-starter. At the summit declared “the war is over” and “peace is possible”.
To declare the war is over reflects a significant debate over the sustainability of the deals brokered by the Trump administration. While President Trump frequently declared the end of conflicts, particularly in the Middle East, such claims have often been met with scepticism, continued violence, or partial implementation.
Here are some reality checks. On October 13, 2025, during a trip to Israel and Egypt, Trump declared the war in the Middle East was over, citing a brokered cease-fire, the release of hostages, and the supposed disarmament of Hamas. Despite the proclamations reports indicated that Israeli troops remained in more than half of Gaza. Furthermore, by early 2026, analysts noted that the ceasefire was fragile, and violence continued, making the “end of war” declaration premature.
Critics and analysts viewed Trump’s declarations as “deal-making” rather than definitive ends to conflicts. In every major scenario, the underlying causes of the conflict remains+, and violent skirmishes or intense diplomatic standoffs continue. Therefore, the announcements surrounding Gaza must be considered as overly optimistic or an overstated and premature framing of an ongoing process.
Donald Trump’s announcements and wild dreams
As of early 2026, while Donald Trump has claimed credit for brokering a lasting peace, the situation on the ground in Gaza remains volatile, with ongoing reports of strikes and violations. Despite the announcement of a ceasefire in October 2025, the reality includes continued, albeit less intense, military actions and a severe humanitarian crisis, far from a comprehensive peace.
A glance regarding the situation in Gaza as of February 2026 shows:
A fragile cease fire although a deal was reached in October 2025 with Trump’s involvement. It has forced cynicism enough to describe it as a “9-day timeout” by critics rather than a lasting truce.
There is intense ongoing violence with Israel inflicting the major share. Despite the ceasefire, Israeli strikes and violations have been reported, resulting in casualties and continued tension.
The Humanitarian Crisis has worsened with thousands displaced, widespread destruction of infrastructure, and limited aid. What calls as improvement reports on the ground indicate a much more chaotic and violent reality. Humanitarian groups as a, “crisis [where] the ceasefire remains fragile”.
The Hard Truth is that the US administration knows too little about the Palestinian condition and will not acknowledge its mighty ignorance. is too proud to acknowledge it. The cease fire is just a theatrical operation in addition to its errant designs.
The minimum conditions to a just and lasting settlement for Palestine
Here are minimum conditions that the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem must obtain, not as a part of UYS and Israeli largesse, but as a matter of right.
A Finalised Ceasefire and Demilitarisation: A permanent end to the war in Gaza requires a, full withdrawal of Israeli forces, the return of all hostages, and the disarmament of Hamas, accompanied by an amnesty for members who commit to peaceful co-existence.
Political Reorganisation and Reform: The reunification of Gaza and the West Bank under a single, reformed Palestinian Authority (PA) or a transitional technocratic committee, free from corruption, is seen as a necessary step to establish effective governance.
An End to Occupation and Settlement Expansion: For a lasting resolution, observers and international bodies emphasize an end to the Israeli military occupation, the dismantling of illegal settlements in the West Bank, and the removal of the blockade on Gaza.
International Recognition of Statehood: The establishment of a sovereign, independent Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, is considered essential for fulfilling the right to self-determination.
Security and Regional Normalization: Sustainable peace requires cooperative security arrangements that guarantee the safety of both Israelis and Palestinians, supported by regional normalization of relations between Israel and Arab states, conditional on the resolution of the Palestinian issue.
Addressing the Refugee Crisis: A just, negotiated resolution to the Palestinian refugee situation, in accordance with international law, is considered a core component of a final peace deal.
The international community, including the United Nations, generally supports a two-state solution based on these parameters as the path to ending the conflict.
_______________
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
