TEHRAN — The decision to include Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a so-called U.S.-led “Board of Peace” for Gaza highlights the deep incoherence of Washington’s approach to Israel’s war against the enclave and its aftermath. A leader facing an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for war crimes against humanity in Gaza is now being positioned as a steward of reconstruction and governance. This contradiction reflects the broader failure of U.S. policy to reconcile power politics with accountability, law, and genuine peace-making.

The board, announced by President Donald Trump as part of the second phase of a ceasefire agreement, is presented as a mechanism to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction, political administration, and economic recovery. Yet its structure and membership reveal an initiative shaped less by conflict resolution than by geopolitical control. By placing Washington at the center of decision-making while sidelining international legal institutions, the plan mirrors the very dynamics that allowed the war to unfold unchecked.

Since October 2023, Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has killed more than 71,500 Palestinians, many of them women and children. Entire neighborhoods have been erased, basic infrastructure destroyed, and Gaza’s social fabric devastated. Throughout this period, the United States has played a decisive enabling role. It has supplied Israel with weapons, provided intelligence and diplomatic cover, and repeatedly blocked or diluted international efforts to impose restraints or accountability.

The U.S.-sponsored ceasefire of October 2025 did little to alter this reality. While it reduced the intensity of large-scale bombardment, hundreds of Palestinians have been killed since the agreement, underscoring the asymmetry of enforcement and the absence of meaningful consequences for violations. For many Palestinians, the ceasefire has functioned less as a step toward peace than as a pause that preserves Israeli military dominance.

The participation of Netanyahu, known as Bibi, in the board further undermines its legitimacy. The ICC warrant accuses the Israeli premier of overseeing policies that amount to crimes against humanity. Whether or not Washington recognizes the court’s authority, much of the international community does. By elevating Netanyahu to a peace-making role, the Trump administration signals that accountability is subordinate to political alignment.

This choice also reflects Netanyahu’s own record. Throughout the war and its aftermath, he has consistently rejected any framework that would limit Israel’s freedom of military action or commit to a full withdrawal from Gaza. His government’s priority has remained the dismantling of Hamas without addressing Palestinian self-determination, civilian protection, or long-term political rights. Far-right members of his cabinet have gone further, openly calling for permanent Israeli control over Gaza and rejecting any international oversight.

The composition of the board reinforces these concerns. The initiative is tightly controlled by the United States, with Trump retaining authority over its membership and mandate. Reports that states must pay $1 billion for a permanent seat raise further questions about its purpose, transforming peace-building into a transactional arrangement rather than a collective international responsibility. The inclusion of private financial figures alongside political actors also blurs the line between reconstruction and profit-making.

International reactions suggest widespread skepticism. Several European states have declined or signaled reluctance to join, citing legal, constitutional, and ethical concerns. China has reaffirmed its support for the United Nations as the cornerstone of the international system, implicitly rejecting any U.S.-designed alternative that sidelines established multilateral mechanisms. The possibility that the board could expand beyond Gaza has only intensified fears that it is meant to compete with, rather than complement, the UN.

At its core, the board of peace appears to offer a managerial solution to a political and legal crisis. It seeks to administer the consequences of war without addressing its causes, and to organize reconstruction without acknowledging responsibility for destruction. By incorporating an ICC-wanted leader while excluding meaningful Palestinian representation, the initiative risks entrenching injustice rather than resolving it.

Peace in Gaza cannot be engineered by the same actors who enabled its devastation, nor can it be built on frameworks that treat international law as optional. Without accountability, equality, and genuine Palestinian agency, the board of peace is unlikely to deliver peace at all. Instead, it stands as a stark illustration of how power, when detached from law, can redefine even the language of peace itself.