When President Donald Trump first raised the idea of establishing a Board of Peace in October, it was as part of his 20-step ceasefire plan for Gaza. The board was meant to oversee a committee of Palestinian technocrats — whose composition was announced last week — and “set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza … [and] call on best international standards to create modern and efficient governance that serves the people of Gaza and is conducive to attracting investment.” 

The following month, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution supporting the ceasefire plan and “welcom[ing] the establishment of the Board of Peace,” authorizing it to operate in Gaza until the end of 2027. 

But the board’s charter describes a body concerned with peace worldwide, not with removing Hamas’ terror threat in Gaza, and in fact, it does not mention Hamas, Gaza or Israel at all. Its expansive, stated role is to “promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.” 

Indeed, it appears to be an attempt to compete with the United Nations. Its preamble says: “Declaring that durable peace requires pragmatic judgment, common-sense solutions, and the courage to depart from approaches and institutions that have too often failed … Emphasizing the need for a more nimble and effective international peace-building body.” Asked at a press conference on Wednesday if he intends for the body to replace the U.N., Trump said it “might.” “I wish the United Nations could do more. I wish we didn’t need a Board of Peace,” he said. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also acknowledged, in a speech to the Knesset on Monday, that the Board of Peace is meant to serve as a kind of alternative U.N. — something that Israel is unlikely to have a problem with, considering the deep anti-Israel bias in Turtle Bay, Geneva and beyond — and he announced on Wednesday that Israel would be joining.

The problem for Israel is that the Board of Peace’s mission creep could distract from what is, for Israel, the most important part of the ceasefire plan, which is to dismantle Hamas as a governing and fighting force.

As Netanyahu put it in the Knesset this week: “In Gaza, we are before Stage 2 of the Trump plan. Stage 2 says one simple thing: Hamas will disarm and Gaza will be demilitarized. We are sticking to these goals and they will be achieved, either the easy way or the hard way.”

In the lengthy announcement about the various committees and boards involved in Gaza reconstruction and its oversight, the White House did not even mention Hamas, let alone demilitarization.

The U.N. Security Council adopted a U.S.-led resolution on Monday backing President Donald Trump’s peace plan for Gaza, including the creation of an international security force, in a move that could boost efforts to advance into the next phase of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire. 

“Congratulations to the World on the incredible Vote of the United Nations Security Council, just moments ago, acknowledging and endorsing the BOARD OF PEACE,” Trump posted to Truth Social following the vote. “This will go down as one of the biggest approvals in the History of the United Nations.”

In the first phase of Trump’s 20-point peace plan, originally presented in September, the Israel Defense Forces have partially withdrawn to a “yellow line” dividing Gaza, while Hamas has returned all of the living hostages and all but three of the deceased hostages’ bodies. 

However, the plan has faced significant roadblocks, and questions remain about the feasibility of implementing the following phases, including effectively disarming Hamas and determining who will govern Gaza. 

Monday’s vote follows coordinated diplomacy between Washington and Arab partners aimed at reviving momentum behind the U.S. plan, including hosting a summit in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, last month and issuing a joint statement of support last week. 

With the adoption of the resolution, the U.N. showed a rare consensus on Gaza — 13 countries voted in favor and none against, with Russia and China abstaining. Experts told Jewish Insider that moving to the second phase of the plan now becomes more plausible — even if challenges remain. 

“The vote on the U.S.-drafted resolution is incredibly significant,” said Dana Stroul, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who added that it provides “an international legal framework for the international stabilization force to deploy in Gaza, which is required for certain countries to send forces, like Indonesia.” 

Prior to the vote, the White House has had difficulty recruiting countries to provide troops for the security force. 

“What is being proposed is an enormous logistical feat, not to mention a high-risk environment where a terrorist organization is still active, the civilian population is in desperate need of humanitarian aid and local security, and Israeli forces remain on the ground,” said Stroul. “Foreign governments are concerned about their forces being attacked by Hamas, or being caught in the middle of Israeli security operations, and want clarity on the command and control, important details like logistical support and lodging, and the specifics of the actual mission.”

A key hurdle will be defining the role of the stabilization force. David May, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said there has been confusion over whether the ISF would “maintain the peace or enforce it.” 

Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, echoed the importance of determining the role such a force would play in Gaza.

“The ISF likely will have lots of participants if the mission is limited to non-kinetic roles like aid distribution, border security, guarding camps, etc., all of which are important,” said Ruhe. “But Hamas thinks it won the war, and it won’t give up without a real fight. Phase 2 will be difficult for everyone if Israel has to do all this heavy lifting, so the success of Trump’s plans depends heavily on resolving the question of who, other than Israel, will actually enforce the peace?”

With the terror group still active in Gaza, few countries have been willing to risk sending soldiers into a conflict that “doesn’t involve them,” according to May. 

“Without foreign forces on the ground, the options are either hoping that Hamas will disarm itself and give up its governance position, or leaving Israel to resume military options to do the disarming,” said Stroul.

At the same time, Hamas has sought to deter the implementation of the next phase — which calls on the group to relinquish its arms and governing authority. 

“Hamas blew by the 72 hours for returning all hostages, living and dead, and continues to attack Israeli forces,” said May, referring to commitments the terror group agreed to in the first phase of the ceasefire. “Hamas always tests the limits of agreements with Israel, and it has little incentive to carry out a ceasefire plan that ultimately calls for the terrorist group’s destruction.” 

“It should not be a surprise that a terrorist organization will try a variety of means to survive, from inflicting violence against Palestinians outside the yellow line to intimidating them into submission, insisting on distinguishing between different kinds of weaponry it may be willing to relinquish to appear reasonable, or attempting to present itself as a legitimate representative of the Palestinian national dialogue,” said Stroul.

Even as Washington and Arab governments moved the plan forward diplomatically, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and right-wing members of his government reiterated their opposition to a Palestinian state over the weekend, a stance that contrasts with the resolution, which contains language on creating “a pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.” This wording was also present in the original plan released by Trump and agreed to by Netanyahu. 

“The rhetoric coming out of Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition this weekend is incredibly ill-timed and will fuel those looking to blame Israel for failure to move from Phase 1 to Phase 2 of the plan,” said Stroul. “By appearing to renege on this issue, Netanyahu is setting himself to be on the opposite side of the Palestinian question from Trump, and risking serious daylight between the U.S. and Israel on Gaza at a high-risk moment.”

May said the inclusion of the clause “may have helped make the resolution more palatable to the other Security Council members,” but added that it will likely be out of the question for Israel moving forward.

“Following the popular support among Palestinians for the Oct. 7 atrocities, a Palestinian state on Israel’s borders is a nonstarter for most Israelis,” said May. “It is not worth it for Israel to risk the stabilization of Gaza on the lip service paid to a two-state solution that is dead in the water for most Israelis.”

Leading up to the vote, Russia had presented a counterproposal that diverged from the U.S. draft resolution in advocating that the West Bank and Gaza be joined as a state under the Palestinian Authority. 

“This is really Russia seeking any way to assert influence in an attempt to make itself relevant,” said Stroul. “Moscow sees anything that keeps the U.S. tied down in the Middle East in a state of conflict, in tension with its longstanding allies and partners, as beneficial.”

Ruhe said Russia’s counterproposal was an attempt to throw “wrenches in America’s gears.”

“Russia was conspicuously absent from the Egypt peace summit, so this is one way Moscow tries to reassert itself,” said Ruhe. “The U.S. decision to mention a pathway to a Palestinian state probably owes more to our partners’ priorities than to Russian pressure, though Moscow certainly will try to claim this as a win anyway.”

The next part of Trump’s proposal also includes the increased entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza and the rebuilding of critical infrastructure. However, like other key elements of the plan, experts said it remains contingent on Hamas’ presence. 

May said the full recovery of Gaza will remain incomplete “until Hamas is disarmed and there are troops on the ground to keep the peace.”

“No one is willing to start reconstructing Gaza if Hamas is still active on the ground,” said Stroul. “This is the fundamental choice for Hamas: it can choose to disarm and stay in Gaza, or receive amnesty and leave. But if it insists on having a say in the future governance of the Strip, then nothing beyond humanitarian aid will flow into Gaza; Palestinians will have no prospects for rebuilding their lives; and the potential for a return to open conflict rises.”

France, Germany and the U.K. are poised to reinstate snapback sanctions on Iran in the next several days, after talks held in Geneva this week aimed at scaling back Iran’s nuclear program reportedly concluded with little progress.

The three countries — known as the E3 — sent a letter to the U.N. Security Council earlier this month outlining “ongoing concerns regarding the lack of assurances as to the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program” and Tehran’s ongoing violations of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, to which the E3 countries are still parties despite the U.S. withdrawal in 2018. 

The countries threatened to reinstate snapback sanctions by the end of August 2025 if “no satisfactory resolution” to the issue was reached before then. 

The mechanism to trigger snapback sanctions at the UNSC expires in October, at which point any attempt to adopt new UNSC sanctions could face vetoes from Russia and China. However, the E3 and U.S. are looking to start the process before Russia assumes the UNSC presidency in October, giving it the power to delay the imposition of snapback sanctions — a process that takes 30 days to complete — until its expiration date. 

The foreign ministers of the E3 and Iran met in Geneva earlier this week to discuss a diplomatic solution that would see Iran roll back its nuclear program without additional sanctions, which reportedly ended with little progress made.

A senior European diplomat told Axios on Wednesday that it would take a “diplomatic miracle” to prevent the reinstatement of snapback sanctions, with the European nations poised to trigger the mechanism as soon as Thursday.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio held a call with the E3 foreign ministers on Wednesday, during which all of the officials “reiterated their commitment to ensuring that Iran never develops or obtains a nuclear weapon,” State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Tommy Pigott said.

U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly pressed for the E3 to trigger the snapback mechanism.

A group of Senate Republicans sent a letter to French, German and U.K. officials this week urging them to immediately reimpose U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran for the regime’s violations of the 2015 nuclear deal and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Six GOP senators, led by Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, urged French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, German Federal Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul and U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy to utilize the snapback provision in UNSC Resolution 2231, which would reimpose all the sanctions lifted on Iran as part of the 2015 deal in response to any violations of the agreement. 

“Initiating the snapback process would be the right — and long overdue — move and would deny Iran the resources it uses for its terror agenda. The 2015 deal flooded Iran with cash while allowing it low-level enrichment, a clock to simply wait out, no limitations on ballistic missiles, and nothing to rein in terror proxies. Years down the line, the sanctions relief Iran received from this deal directly funded Iran’s terror proxies and led to Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel,” the senators wrote.

“Iran’s ejection of the International Atomic Energy Agency from its facilities marked the latest in a long chain of violations to Iran’s nuclear commitments. These actions confirm what we have known all along: the Iranian nuclear program is not civilian; it is the pursuit of a bomb to destroy Israel and threaten U.S. national security interests in the region. The international community must not tolerate this activity any longer,” they continued. 

The letter was co-signed by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), John Cornyn (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT) and Bill Hagerty (R-TN).

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot warned on Tuesday that the E3, the European countries party to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, will trigger the snapback mechanism, reimposing all U.N. sanctions, if a new agreement is not reached.

The senators encouraged the recipients of their letter to go beyond simply initiating the snapback sanctions, which takes 30 days and would likely need to be completed before Russia takes over the presidency of the UNSC in October, the same time that the snapback mechanism is set to expire. 

“The decision to initiate the snapback process is only the beginning. The UNSC must fully process and formally re-instate UN sanctions without delay. This will take several weeks, and the October expiration of the snapback mechanism is looming. Furthermore, once sanctions are back in place, we must commit to their enforcement. Chinese purchases of Iranian oil and illicit oil smuggling through third countries have long violated existing U.S. secondary sanctions. Once UN sanctions return, all member countries will have a duty to crack down on this illegal activity,” the group wrote.

“President Trump has instituted a maximum pressure policy to bring Iran to the negotiating table. It is our sincere hope that our allies will stand side by side with America as we counter Iran’s threat to regional and global security for good,” they continued.

France, Germany and the U.K. will bring back sanctions on Iran via the U.N. Security Council if a nuclear deal is not reached by the end of August, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot warned on Tuesday.

Barrot said that the E3, the European countries party to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, will trigger the snapback mechanism, reimposing all U.N. sanctions, if a new agreement is not reached.

The Trump administration hopes to reach an agreement with the Islamic Republic to stop any uranium enrichment in Iran after Israeli and American strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites last month, aiming to prevent Tehran from rebuilding its severely damaged nuclear program.

“France and its partners are …  justified in reapplying global embargoes on arms, banks and nuclear equipment that were lifted 10 years ago,” Barrot said on the way to a meeting with EU foreign ministers in Brussels. “Without a firm, tangible and verifiable commitment from Iran, we will do so by the end of August at the latest.” 

The snapback mechanism expires in October and takes 30 days to activate, such that the end of August is the last chance to impose U.N. sanctions that cannot be vetoed by Russia and China, Iran’s allies on the Security Council. Moscow is slated to assume the presidency of the U.N. Security Council in October and could try to obstruct the move if it is not completed before then.

The E3 reached the shared policy in a phone call with Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday, according to Axios. 

Barrot’s statement also came after reports in Arabic and Iranian media that Germany planned to activate snapback sanctions this week, which the German Foreign Ministry denied to Jewish Insider. A German official confirmed that his country shares France’s position.

Earlier this week, Tehran threatened a “proportionate and appropriate response” if the E3 snaps back sanctions, a move Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei claimed “lacks any legal, political or moral justification.”

“European parties are constantly trying to use it as a tool in violation of their fundamental obligations,” he added.