The Board of Peace has gone into Pieces. Yes, Trump's ‘Board of Peace’ Now Rests in Peace! A disastrous end of peace... When a peace initiative collapses even before it begins, the problem is rarely the battlefield alone. More often, it lies in the absence of vision, diplomacy, and strategy. The recently proposed “Board of Peace” initiative for Gaza, announced by Donald Trump, is a classic example of how grand declarations without careful planning can quickly turn into political theatre. At first glance, the idea of creating an international board to oversee the reconstruction and governance of Gaza may appear constructive. War-torn regions do require coordinated global support. But the structure of this proposed board raises more questions than it answers. According to the draft charter, any country contributing one billion dollars within the first year would secure permanent membership. Even more unusual, the board would be headed personally by Donald Trump, not by the office of the President of the United States. This alone transforms what should have been a multilateral diplomatic mechanism into something resembling a private political project. International institutions function through governments and formal offices, not individual personalities. The contradictions grow even sharper when examining the membership structure. The inclusion of Israel in a “Board of Peace” for Gaza may be diplomatically understandable from one perspective, but it immediately raises credibility issues among many observers. At the same time, the proposal explicitly excludes Hamas from any direct or indirect role in governance. Whether one agrees with Hamas or not is a different debate. The reality is that durable peace processes typically involve engagement with all relevant actors on the ground. History shows that peace agreements, from Northern Ireland to Colombia, often required negotiations with groups previously considered unacceptable. Ignoring a major political and military force within Gaza simply makes the proposal appear detached from reality. More troubling, however, is the absence of major global powers from the initiative. Countries such as Russia, China, and India are not part of the proposed board. In today’s multipolar world, any international reconstruction effort of this scale requires broad geopolitical participation. Excluding these countries, or failing to consult them beforehand, inevitably weakens the legitimacy and effectiveness of the project. Diplomacy works through consultation, not proclamation. Equally puzzling is the lack of institutional backing from the United Nations. Traditionally, international reconstruction programs receive legitimacy through UN frameworks or multinational agreements. Yet the Board of Peace appears to have been announced unilaterally, with its structure, funding rules, and leadership already predetermined. Such an approach gives the impression that the world is expected to simply accept the terms as dictated. Now Trump wants to control the Strait of Hormuz! Global diplomacy does not function like a corporate boardroom where the chairman sets the rules and others sign the cheque. Trump is the king of chaos! Any Nobel Prize? The final irony is that the very peace the board was supposed to bring now seems further away than ever. Continued military escalation, regional tensions involving Iran, and mounting criticism from various quarters have placed the initiative effectively on hold. Some participating countries, including Indonesia, have reportedly faced domestic pressure over their involvement. Meanwhile, the conflict continues and civilians remain trapped in the cycle of violence. In the end, peace in the Middle East cannot be manufactured through dramatic announcements or symbolic committees. It requires patience, credibility, negotiation, and inclusive diplomacy. Without those foundations, even something called a “Board of Peace” can quickly fall to pieces. #🚹உளவியல் சிந்தனை #📺அரசியல் 360🔴