The Davos Divide: Trump's Board of Peace Charter Signed as Allies Split Over Gaza's Future
While 19 nations endorsed the new initiative in Switzerland, key European powers withheld support, citing concerns over global precedent and Putin's involvement, as a detailed Gaza "master plan" faces immediate tests.
The Charter Signing and Its Global Ambitions
On January 22, 2026, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, U.S. President Donald Trump signed the founding charter for a new body called the Board of Peace. The ceremony was attended by officials from 19 countries, including Argentina, Qatar, Azerbaijan, Hungary, and several Middle Eastern monarchies. President Trump framed the initiative as a global project, stating, "This isn't the United States — this is for the world," and suggested its work could extend beyond Gaza to other conflicts. The Board's 11-page charter does not mention Gaza once, indicating its broader intended scope.
The Board of Peace is a direct outcome of the "Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict," a 20-point ceasefire roadmap between Israel and Hamas endorsed by the UN Security Council in November 2025. The Board is designed to oversee the plan's implementation, providing strategic oversight and mobilizing international resources for Gaza's stabilization and reconstruction.
Immediate Resistance from Key Allies
Despite the fanfare, the launch exposed significant fractures. Several key U.S. allies, including major European powers, publicly declined to join at this stage.
Notable countries withholding support:
· United Kingdom: Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said Britain would not sign, citing legal concerns and the potential involvement of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
· France: Expressed concern the board could undermine the United Nations.
· Other European Nations: Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Slovenia also indicated they would not participate. Slovenia's Prime Minister cited a need to protect established international law.
A central point of controversy is the invitation to Russia's Vladimir Putin, whom the U.S. administration has said is considering joining. This has drawn sharp criticism from European leaders, given the ongoing war in Ukraine. Furthermore, an Arab diplomat noted that Middle Eastern governments' acceptance was "preliminary" and crafted to limit support strictly to the UN-backed Gaza plan.
The Gaza "Master Plan": Vision Versus Reality
A core part of the Davos presentation was the detailed plan for Gaza's future, unveiled by Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner.
Kushner's vision included:
· A "New Gaza" and "New Rafah" with zones for coastal tourism, industry, and residences.
· Renderings showing up to 180 skyscrapers, an airport, and a seaport.
· A pledge to build over 100,000 housing units and hundreds of schools and medical facilities within two to three years.
The plan shifts immediate governance to a new Palestinian body, the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), led by technocrat Dr. Ali Shaath. In a video message from Cairo, Shaath announced a critical first step: the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt is scheduled to open in both directions the following week. He stated this would signal "Gaza is no longer closed to the future or to the world".
However, the plan faces immense practical and political hurdles. It was presented as a "blank slate," largely ignoring the property rights of generations of Palestinians. Kushner urged private investors to fund the vision, admitting it was "a little risky". Most critically, the presentation made almost no mention of the International Stabilization Force (ISF), a key component of the original UN-backed plan meant to facilitate Israeli withdrawal and secure Gaza. Its creation has been fraught, with no country eager to have its troops confront Hamas.
The Core Obstacle: Demilitarization and Withdrawal
The entire proposal hinges on one unresolved issue: the disarmament of Hamas. The U.S. blueprint calls for Hamas's heavy weapons to be "decommissioned immediately". Kushner stated bluntly, "If Hamas does not demilitarize, that will be what holds back the people of Gaza".
The plan tasks the new Palestinian NCAG, supported by a Palestinian police force trained in Jordan and Egypt, with taking control of weapons. Hamas has reportedly agreed in principle to hand over heavy weapons to a Palestinian administration but has a history of resisting total disarmament. The NCAG's chief commissioner, Ali Shaath, emphasized the goal of "one authority, one law, and one weapon".
Israeli withdrawal is equally uncertain. The Israeli military currently controls over half of Gaza's territory. The plan says further withdrawal will be "based on agreed-upon standards" but provides no details. Israel's cabinet was due to discuss the Rafah crossing opening, with hardliners opposing it until the remains of the last unaccounted-for Israeli hostage are returned.
An Uncertain Path Forward
The Board of Peace now moves into an operational phase with deep questions unanswered. Its structure includes a high representative for Gaza, veteran diplomat Nickolay Mladenov, and an executive board featuring figures like Jared Kushner, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and World Bank President Ajay Banga. Permanent membership reportedly carries a $1 billion contribution.
On the ground in Gaza, reactions are skeptical. With most of the population still living in tents amid a humanitarian crisis, Al Jazeera reported a widespread feeling that Palestinians are "being discussed as a problem to be managed, not as people with rights". The plan also notably avoids any mention of a future sovereign Palestinian state, though it does not rule out a unified Palestine.
The immediate test comes with the scheduled opening of the Rafah crossing—a move that could ease the severe aid blockade but requires Israeli approval. The larger test is whether the Board of Peace, born amid diplomatic division, can muster the unified will to navigate the disarmament of Hamas and the resistance of Israeli extremists to translate a Davos vision into a tangible peace.
About the Creator
Saad
I’m Saad. I’m a passionate writer who loves exploring trending news topics, sharing insights, and keeping readers updated on what’s happening around the world.
Thinking Machines Cofounder’s Office Relationship Preceded His Termination
The departure of a cofounder from Thinking Machines has raised eyebrows in the tech industry, not just for the suddenness of the termination but for the circumstances leading up to it. Reports indicate that an office relationship played a central role in the chain of events that culminated in the executive’s exit. While workplace romances are not uncommon, they often bring complications, particularly in high-stakes startup environments where power dynamics, corporate governance, and reputation intersect. The Controversy Unfolds According to sources familiar with the situation, the cofounder was involved in a relationship with another employee at the company. While the exact details of the relationship remain private, insiders suggest that the pairing breached company policies or raised concerns about professional conduct. Thinking Machines, like many tech startups, operates in a fast-paced, high-pressure environment. The company has grown rapidly over the past few years, and its leadership team has had to navigate challenges ranging from product development and investor relations to employee retention and internal culture. When personal relationships cross professional boundaries, they can introduce conflicts that affect team dynamics and corporate governance. The Role of Workplace Relationships Workplace romances are notoriously complicated, particularly when they involve executives or cofounders. According to HR studies, relationships between employees at different levels of hierarchy can create perceived favoritism, conflicts of interest, or power imbalances. While many companies allow consensual relationships under disclosure policies, the key is transparency and adherence to rules designed to protect all parties involved. In this case, the cofounder’s relationship reportedly came under scrutiny because it involved someone in a position that could influence decisions affecting the cofounder. Whether the termination was a direct result of the relationship or a culmination of multiple factors remains unclear. What is evident is that the incident highlights the fine line leaders must walk when personal matters intersect with professional responsibilities. Corporate Governance and Policy Startups often struggle to codify policies that address workplace relationships effectively. Larger corporations typically have formal HR guidelines that require disclosure of relationships between employees, particularly if one party has managerial influence over the other. Violations can result in disciplinary actions ranging from reassignment to termination. Thinking Machines, while innovative in its technical pursuits, is not immune to these challenges. The situation serves as a reminder that even founders and executives are subject to corporate governance and internal policies. No matter how critical an individual is to a company’s success, compliance with rules and standards remains paramount. Industry Reactions The tech industry has reacted with a mix of sympathy, criticism, and analysis. Some industry insiders argue that startups often fail to prepare leaders for the personal consequences of workplace relationships. “In a small company, personal and professional lives inevitably overlap,” says Priya Shah, a tech HR consultant. “The key is having clear, enforceable policies and ensuring everyone understands them, regardless of rank or seniority.” Others contend that the cofounder’s termination sends a strong signal: no one is above company rules, and startups must maintain professional boundaries to protect both employees and the organization’s reputation. In a sector where culture can define success as much as technology, upholding standards is essential. Broader Implications for Startup Culture The Thinking Machines incident raises larger questions about startup culture, accountability, and the human side of business. Tech startups often pride themselves on casual environments, open communication, and unconventional leadership structures. While these traits foster creativity and agility, they can blur the line between personal and professional conduct. Founders and executives, in particular, face heightened scrutiny because their behavior sets the tone for the company. When leadership engages in personal relationships with employees, it can inadvertently create perceptions of favoritism or undermine trust. Even when consensual, such relationships require careful management to avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of impropriety. Lessons for Employees and Leaders Several lessons emerge from this high-profile termination: Transparency Matters: Disclosing workplace relationships where there’s a potential conflict of interest is crucial. This protects both employees and the organization. Policies Are Non-Negotiable: Regardless of rank, adherence to corporate policies is essential. Violations, even if unintentional, can have serious consequences. Company Culture Shapes Outcomes: A company culture that encourages open discussion, clear boundaries, and accountability can help prevent situations from escalating. Leadership Responsibility: Leaders must model professional conduct, as their actions influence employees and the broader organizational culture. The cofounder’s termination, while unfortunate, is not necessarily a cautionary tale about personal choices alone—it underscores the broader importance of professional boundaries, governance, and communication in startups. The Human Element It’s easy to focus solely on policy or corporate optics, but at its core, this story involves real people navigating complex personal and professional dynamics. Workplace relationships are a human reality, and handling them thoughtfully requires emotional intelligence, foresight, and adherence to agreed-upon standards. For startups that move quickly and operate under pressure, balancing empathy with governance is a continual challenge. Moving Forward For Thinking Machines, the cofounder’s departure may be a turning point. The company will need to reinforce policies, communicate clearly with employees, and maintain morale during a period of scrutiny. Meanwhile, other startups and tech companies will likely observe the situation closely, seeing it as a case study in how leadership behavior, personal relationships, and corporate governance intersect. For the cofounder, the termination represents a professional setback, but it may also provide an opportunity for reflection, growth, and future endeavors. In a sector driven by innovation and risk-taking, resilience is often as important as skill or vision. Conclusion The story of the Thinking Machines cofounder serves as a timely reminder that workplace relationships, even at the highest levels, carry real consequences. Startups must strike a careful balance between flexibility, culture, and rules to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. While personal dynamics will always be part of the workplace, organizations that clarify expectations and enforce policies consistently can prevent conflicts and protect both employees and leadership. The incident underscores a fundamental truth in business: talent and position do not exempt anyone from the responsibilities and standards required to sustain a healthy, professional environment.
By Muhammad Hassan7 days ago in The Swamp
Gold & Silver Price Forecast: Will Gains Continue?
An in-depth look at the forces shaping precious metal prices and what investors should watch next. Gold and silver have once again captured the spotlight in global financial markets. After a period of strong gains punctuated by sharp pullbacks, investors are asking a familiar but pressing question: will the rally in gold and silver prices continue, or are the markets approaching another turning point? Understanding the outlook for these precious metals requires a close look at macroeconomic trends, monetary policy, geopolitical risks, and shifting investor behavior.
By Salaar Jamali5 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.