Board of Peace Faces Israel Test in Washington: Next Meeting & What to Know

Washington will soon host a high stakes diplomatic test Feb. 19 when invited leaders convene for the first meeting of the Gaza Board of Peace.

The United States-backed body is pitched as the next phase of ceasefire implementation in the region though has already faced questions about authority, jurisdiction, and who gets a seat at the table.

The Feb. 19 meeting in Washington is expected to focus on defining the board’s structure, membership and jurisdiction rather than implementing policy decisions. Governments will weigh what Phase Two means for Gaza governance, reconstruction oversight and security coordination.

Military.com reached out to the White House, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Israeli Embassy in Washington, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and multiple UN offices for comment. The Department of State did not respond.

UN Clarifies Mandate, Limits

The United Nations (UN) made clear its role in the proposed Board of Peace is confined strictly to Gaza specific mandates authorized by the Security Council.

The Board of Peace has been authorized by the Security Council for its work on Gaza—strictly for that. We're not talking about the wider operations or any of the aspects that have been in the media for the last several days. - Deputy UN spokesperson Farhan Haq to Military.com

Haq added that the secretariat has not received formal outreach beyond what has been publicly discussed. 

“I'm not aware of any communication that we've received on any of this,” he said when asked whether the secretary-general had been invited to directly participate.

Asked whether the board could serve as a substitute for the United Nations or the Security Council, Haq rejected that framing.

“As you're well aware, the UN has coexisted alongside any number of organizations,” he said. “There are regional organizations, subregional organizations, various defence alliances around the world. Some of them, we have relationship agreements with. Some of them, we don't."

We would have to see in terms of details what the Board of Peace becomes as it actually is established to know what sort of relationship we would have with it.

The remarks signal that while UN officials have welcomed ceasefire measures related to Gaza, participation in any broader governance structure would depend on alignment with existing Security Council resolutions governing humanitarian access, civilian protection and reconstruction oversight.

Military.com reached out to additional UN offices for comment.

Washington Launch Puts Governance Front and Center

Phase Two marks a shift from emergency stabilization toward longer term governance planning and reconstruction management.

Supporters argue that a centralized framework could reduce fractured aid delivery and competing governance claims. Critics question whether the board can operate without duplicating existing UN mechanisms or colliding with Israeli security demands.

The board arrives amid unresolved questions that have shaped every post conflict discussion in Gaza: who controls border access, who oversees reconstruction money, and how any governing body enforces decisions inside the territory.

Hard Questions Raised

Phase Two follows months of ceasefire talks and stabilization efforts aimed at reducing large scale combat operations and restoring basic services.

Planning documents circulated to participating governments framed the next stage around governance design, reconstruction coordination, and a political mechanism to manage long-term stability.

Key questions headed into Feb. 19 include:

• Whether the board has legal standing or operates as a political forum
• How membership is selected and who holds decision making authority
• How reconstruction pledges are tracked and audited
• How humanitarian coordination aligns with existing UN operations
• How security requirements are handled without undermining civilian governance

Military.com reached out to the White House and Department of Defense for comment.

Israel Objects to Board Scope and Authority

Israeli officials have signaled caution about any mechanism that could dilute Israel’s security authority or constrain operational freedom in Gaza. Israel’s government also objected after the White House announced the leaders it said would help oversee next steps in Gaza, sharpening the dispute over consultation and control.

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has repeatedly emphasized that the Israeli Defense Forces must retain operational flexibility to conduct counterterrorism missions, control border access and prevent militant rearmament. Those priorities often collide with international calls for tighter oversight of reconstruction materials and governance arrangements.

Military.com reached out to the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office, the Israeli Defense Forces and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for comment. None responded before publication.

UN and Regional Players Wait for Clarity

UN officials and regional governments have acknowledged evolving governance discussions but have not formally endorsed the proposed Board of Peace structure.

UN agencies already operate under Security Council mandates governing humanitarian access and civilian protection. Any new governance mechanism would need to align with those mandates or risk duplicating authority and confusing chain of command.

Qatar has played a central mediation role in ceasefire negotiations. The Palestinian Authority has long argued it should hold administrative authority in Gaza. The board’s design, funding oversight and jurisdiction could reshape both regional diplomacy and internal Palestinian political dynamics.

Military.com reached out for comment to the United Nations, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Relief and Works Agency, Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Palestinian Authority.