In Gaza, Trump’s Board of Peace Met With Deep Scepticism, Little Hope

When news broke that a proposed “Board of Peace” associated with Donald Trump would focus on Gaza’s future, the reaction inside the besieged territory was far from celebratory. In crowded neighborhoods, among displaced families and exhausted aid workers, the announcement was met not with optimism but with deep scepticism — and, for many, very little hope.

Gaza, governed by Hamas and blockaded by Israel and Egypt, has endured years of conflict, economic collapse and humanitarian strain. Diplomatic initiatives have come and gone. Ceasefires have been declared and shattered. For residents living through repeated cycles of violence, new proposals from foreign capitals often feel distant and abstract.

A War-Weary Territory

Gaza’s humanitarian crisis predates any new diplomatic board. Decades of tension between Israel and Palestinian factions have left infrastructure fragile and economic opportunity scarce. Electricity shortages, water contamination and limited medical supplies are daily realities.

For many residents, survival takes precedence over political analysis. Families displaced by fighting live in temporary shelters. Parents worry about food and schooling. In such an environment, announcements from Washington can feel disconnected from immediate needs.

“We have heard many plans,” said one shopkeeper in Gaza City, echoing a sentiment repeated by others. “But our lives have not changed.”

What Is the “Board of Peace”?

Details surrounding the proposed initiative remain limited, but it has been framed as an advisory body aimed at shaping a new path for stability in Gaza. Supporters describe it as an effort to bypass entrenched political gridlock and introduce fresh thinking into a stalled peace process.

Critics, however, see it as symbolic rather than substantive. During his presidency, Trump championed a Middle East peace framework that was welcomed by Israel but rejected by Palestinian leadership. Many in Gaza remember that period as one in which Palestinian political aspirations were sidelined.

The skepticism today is rooted partly in that history. Residents question whether any initiative associated with Trump can serve as an impartial platform for addressing their grievances.

A History of Distrust

Trust is perhaps the scarcest resource in Gaza.

The broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been shaped by failed negotiations, broken agreements and competing narratives. International mediators have repeatedly attempted to bridge divides, yet durable peace remains elusive.

Within Gaza, many residents feel excluded from high-level diplomacy. Decisions about their future are often made without direct consultation. As a result, announcements of new boards, committees or frameworks can feel imposed rather than collaborative.

Political analysts note that legitimacy is crucial for any peace initiative. Without buy-in from local communities and leadership, proposals risk being dismissed before they begin.

Diverging Perspectives

Reactions to the Board of Peace are not uniform. Some Palestinians, particularly those exhausted by conflict, express cautious curiosity. Any initiative that promises reconstruction funding or a reduction in violence attracts attention.

Others remain deeply cynical. They argue that structural realities — including the blockade, internal Palestinian political divisions and regional power struggles — cannot be resolved by advisory panels.

In Gaza City, university students debated whether international involvement could pressure both Hamas and Israel toward compromise. “We want peace,” one student reportedly said, “but we want dignity too.”

That balance — security and dignity — has long defined the heart of the conflict.

Regional and International Dynamics

The broader geopolitical environment further complicates perceptions. Neighboring Egypt plays a central mediating role in ceasefire negotiations. Gulf states have normalized relations with Israel in recent years. The United States remains a key ally of Israel while also providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinians.

In this intricate web, a Trump-associated initiative carries political weight beyond its formal structure. For Israel’s government, such a board may signal continuity with previous diplomatic alignments. For Palestinian factions, it may symbolize imbalance.

Meanwhile, international organizations such as the United Nations continue to call for humanitarian access and long-term political solutions rooted in international law.

Daily Realities Overshadow Diplomacy

For Gaza’s residents, however, abstract geopolitics often pales beside immediate hardship.

Markets struggle to stock goods consistently. Reconstruction projects stall amid funding and material shortages. Youth unemployment remains among the highest in the world.

In such conditions, peace proposals are judged not by rhetoric but by tangible outcomes. Will electricity supply improve? Will crossings open more regularly? Will families feel safe enough to rebuild?

Absent concrete improvements, skepticism hardens.

Political Fragmentation

Another obstacle lies within Palestinian politics itself. The divide between Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank complicates representation. Any external initiative must navigate these internal dynamics carefully.

Without unified Palestinian leadership, critics argue, negotiations risk fragmentation. A Board of Peace that lacks coordination with key stakeholders may struggle to translate ideas into action.

Similarly, Israeli domestic politics influence responses. Security concerns dominate public discourse in Israel, especially after periods of heightened violence. Proposals perceived as insufficiently addressing security may face resistance.

The Weight of Experience

Perhaps the most significant factor shaping Gaza’s reaction is lived experience. Residents have endured multiple wars, ceasefires and diplomatic announcements. Hope, once abundant, has been tempered by repetition.

Psychologists working in the region describe “conflict fatigue” — a form of emotional exhaustion that diminishes optimism about political solutions. For many Gazans, survival strategies focus on the present, not on distant diplomatic forums.

This does not mean people reject peace. On the contrary, surveys often show strong desire for stability and normalcy. But belief in external saviors has eroded.

Can Skepticism Be Overcome?

For any initiative — whether led by Trump or another international actor — credibility will depend on inclusion and results.

Meaningful consultation with local communities, transparent goals and coordination with regional mediators could help rebuild trust. Concrete steps toward reconstruction, easing humanitarian restrictions and protecting civilians would speak louder than declarations.

Diplomacy in Gaza requires more than announcements. It requires sustained engagement, compromise and accountability from all sides.

Conclusion

In Gaza, the announcement of Trump’s Board of Peace has been met with a weary shrug rather than applause. Years of conflict have conditioned residents to measure initiatives by outcomes, not promises.

Scepticism does not necessarily signal rejection of peace. It reflects a community shaped by repeated disappointment and constrained by harsh realities. For many Gazans, hope is not absent — it is cautious, guarded and contingent on change they can see.

Whether this new diplomatic effort can transform skepticism into confidence remains uncertain. In a land where politics and survival intertwine daily, trust must be earned slowly — and peace, if it comes, will need to reach far beyond boardrooms and headlines