Wetin Trump Board of Peace mean for Palestine future

When dem dey unveil international initiatives about Palestine for places like Davos, dem dey bring am come wrapped inside language wey make am look like say e no fit avoid.

Dem dey present peace like na technical wahala wey panels, frameworks and carefully managed consensus fit solve.

The ‘Board of Peace’ wey dem launch dis week for the World Economic Forum na the latest try to push momentum for conflict wey don outlast generations.

For Palestinians, this kain moment no new. Na familiar episode for long history of solutions wey outsiders design — many of dem promise state, stability or prosperity, but end up with prolonged occupation, fragmented sovereignty and management of injustice instead of proper solution.

Any serious assessment of the Board of Peace suppose start no be from im aspirations, but from the political record wey e inherit.

US President Donald Trump launch the Board of Peace as body wey dem say go resolve international conflicts, and report talk say permanent membership get $1 billion price tag.

Originally dem design the board make e supervise rebuilding of Gaza, but draft of im charter no show say role go limit only to Palestinian territory.

One senior White House official talk say about 35 countries — including Türkiye — don so far commit to join, out of roughly 50 invitations wey dem send.

These details matter. Dem clear say the Board of Peace no be only humanitarian mechanism wey focus narrow on Gaza, but na new political structure wey get wider ambitions and membership wey power, access and alignment dey shape.

Peace by peace

Peace processes no ever neutral. Dem reflect balance of power and political priorities wey dey when dem create them, and this one na no exception.

How the board dem arrange am deepen this concern. Among the states wey dem report say dey participate na Israel and some key US allies for Middle East, plus other governments wey get close political ties to Washington.

Israel’s participation get special significance. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — whose government oversee the devastating destruction of Gaza — dey part of board wey suppose dey shape peace and reconstruction.

This one no mean say the initiative bad from the start, but e show the main tension wey don dey trouble diplomatic efforts on Palestine: whether dem dey approach peace as process wey base for accountability and rights, or as forum to stabilise power without calling people to account.

This tension help explain why Palestinian scepticism towards new diplomatic frameworks no be only ideology — na political experience wey dem don live.

From Oslo onwards, peace initiatives many times put priority for security coordination, economic management and interim arrangements, while dem dey postpone or dilute the main issues wey define the conflict: occupation, sovereignty, borders, refugees and equality before law.

The result no be peace, but deepening asymmetry wey entrench Israeli occupation and at the same time make the promise of viable Palestinian state empty.

The risk with the Board of Peace no just be say e fit fail. The bigger risk be say e fit succeed in reframing the conflict in ways wey go lower people expectations.

Reconstruction without sovereignty, aid without rights, stability without justice — all these na familiar outcomes from past processes.

If board treat Gaza like only technical rebuilding matter, instead of part of wider political struggle for self-determination, e dey risk to repeat the same pattern.

Trump’s vision of a rebuilt Gaza — full of glitzy high-rises and palm-lined waterfronts — na mockery of the suffering wey Palestinians for Gaza don suffer these past two years, their homeland don turn to dystopian landscape because of Israel’s war machine.

But at the same time, e no right — and e no wise strategically — to write off the Board of Peace as irrelevant.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan put road for eye when he describe the Board of Peace as a "historic opportunity" to end the long suffering of Palestinians.

Him view just reflect the optimism of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan — one of the most vocal supporters of the Palestinian cause — that all initiatives wey aim to bring peace for Gaza get importance.

Initiatives of this size dey shape diplomatic talk, influence international expectations and create reference points wey fit either advance or undermine Palestinian claims.

Whether Palestinians welcome am or not, such body go affect how governments, media and institutions go dey talk about "solutions" in the months wey dey come.

Na in this sense — and only in this sense — we fit call the Board of Peace a unique opportunity despite the flaws wey dey.

No be because the structure go automatically bring just outcome, but because moments wey international attention concentrate dey force choices wey otherwise dem go dey postpone.

Dem go force states and institutions make dem clear wetin dem ready to defend and wetin dem ready to give up.

Now or never

For this opportunity make sense, some principles no fit remain implicit or just aspirations. International law suppose be binding framework, no be only rhetorical reference.

Palestinian self-determination no suppose dey pushed back forever for the sake of economic incentives or security arrangements.

Occupation suppose to dey named as the central obstacle to peace, no make am vanish with abstract talk about "cycles of violence" or "mutual mistrust".

Most important, Palestinian agency suppose be real, not only for form. Plenti previous initiatives put Palestinians for the picture in form, while dem exclude the real substance of their political demands.

Process wey seek legitimacy without equality no go bring stability, far less reconciliation.

Role of the wider international community — especially the Muslim world — dey decisive. Participation for such board no fit reduce to endorsement or optics matter.

If states decide to engage, dem suppose bring clear red lines: "Palestinian statehood cannot be optional"; timelines no suppose dey endlessly flexible; reconstruction no suppose separate from political rights.

Engagement wey no get leverage fit legitimise outcomes wey only manage the conflict instead of resolving am.

Another big danger be say initiatives like the Board of Peace fit become vehicle for normalisation without real resolution.

Regional cooperation and diplomatic integration fit move forward, while the Palestinian question remain structurally unresolved.

People don try this approach before, and the consequences dey clear: recurring violence, deepening inequality and waning faith for political solutions altogether.

Peace no dey come from panels alone. E no dey come from elite consensus or institutional design if those things disconnect from justice wey dey ground level.

Peace dey emerge when power dey constrained by law, when rights dey treated as foundation instead of negotiable things, and when those wey the conflict concern most no dey asked to trade their future for small temporary calm.

So the Board of Peace go dey judged no by how big im sponsors be or how ambitious im plan be, but by one simple test: e dey confront the realities of occupation and inequality, or e dey try just manage dem?

If e fit do that, e fit actually be rare chance to break from decades of failed approaches.

The choice no belong to Palestinians only. E belong to the international community wey still dey shape — and many times protect — the conditions under which this conflict dey persist.