Table of Contents
Let’s tell the truth: a new US plan tries to remake Gaza’s future
The announcement that President Donald Trump convened a new Board of Peace has accelerated debates over reconstruction in Gaza and regional diplomacy. The plan, publicized ahead of a Washington meeting on Thursday, includes a headline commitment of $5bn for rebuilding. It also promises \”thousands\” of personnel for an International Stabilization Force and for local policing.
The emperor has no clothes, and I’m telling you: the political window for rebuilding remains narrow. Violence in Gaza continues to produce casualties. That reality complicates both the optics and the substance of any reconstruction effort.
Separately, private envoy Tom Barrack is leading diplomatic efforts focused on Lebanon. Those efforts, aligned with emerging US policy contours, press to disarm Hezbollah in exchange for economic incentives and moves toward border normalization. Together, the initiatives show how military, political and economic levers are being combined across multiple fronts to shape post-conflict outcomes.
What the board of peace proposes and why it matters
Let’s tell the truth: the public face of the plan is deliberately simple. It pairs a headline pledge of $5bn for Gaza’s reconstruction with commitments of personnel to support security and policing.
Officials framed the effort as both a funding vehicle and a leverage tool to shape post-conflict governance. The board will press for what it calls “full and immediate demilitarization” of Hamas, according to White House statements.
The United States reportedly asked prospective members to commit $1bn each to join the board. That funding structure reportedly attracted the United Arab Emirates and possibly Kuwait, among others.
Operationally, the proposal links reconstruction finance to specific security outcomes. Advocates say this aligns incentives: donors get safeguards that their money supports a demilitarized civil order. Critics warn the conditionality could slow urgently needed relief.
The administration’s choice to combine cash, personnel and political demands signals a broader strategy. Military, diplomatic and economic levers are being used together to influence who governs Gaza and how reconstruction proceeds.
Let’s tell the truth: military, diplomatic and economic levers are being used together to influence who governs Gaza and how reconstruction proceeds. That mix frames the Board as a shortcut to rebuild and stabilize the territory. Supporters say it accelerates delivery and reduces reliance on existing multilateral institutions. Critics say the funds and the model do not match the scale of destruction and warn that tying security guarantees to reconstruction risks coercion.
Promises versus capacity
On paper, cash and personnel promise stability and recovery. In practice, the equation is more complicated. The pledged $5bn is meaningful but modest compared with the immediate needs of a territory described as war-shattered. Deploying international personnel raises questions about mandate, oversight and local acceptance. Several key US allies have declined to join the Board, which undercuts claims of broad multilateral buy-in and complicates legitimacy.
Operational capacity is uneven. Donor coordination, supply-chain security and reconstruction planning require sustained engagement. Those elements are costly and time-consuming. Short-term pledges without durable frameworks risk creating fragmented projects that fail to restore essential services or livelihoods.
Violence on the ground undercuts reconstruction efforts
Ongoing hostilities impede access for engineers, aid workers and contractors. Security incidents delay or halt projects and raise insurance and liability concerns. Civilian displacement and damaged infrastructure make baseline assessments difficult and increase costs.
Security arrangements linked to reconstruction can also have political effects. Where protection is conditional, local actors may face pressure to accept external terms that affect governance and civil liberties. Humanitarian agencies caution that blending security and development mandates can blur accountability and compromise neutrality.
Donors and planners face a practical choice: scale up multilateral coordination and protections for civilians, or accept a faster, more security-driven model with greater political risk. Analysts expect debates over mandate, oversight and measurable benchmarks to persist as reconstruction plans move from pledges to implementation.
Violence continues as board prepares to meet
Let’s tell the truth: while the Board prepared to meet, violence in Gaza did not pause.
Medical sources reported that Israeli forces killed at least 11 Palestinians in multiple strikes across the Gaza Strip. The attacks struck tents sheltering displaced families in the Jabalia refugee camp and in Khan Younis.
Hamas described the incidents as a “new massacre.” Gaza authorities said the strikes constituted ongoing violations of the ceasefire that took effect on October 10.
The emperor has no clothes, and I’m telling you: the persistence of such strikes complicates efforts to move from pledges to reconstruction. Analysts say debates over mandate, oversight and measurable benchmarks are likely to intensify as implementation proceeds.
Implications for implementation
Let’s tell the truth: debates over mandate, oversight and measurable benchmarks will face a practical hurdle—ongoing allegations of ceasefire breaches. Analysts say these disputes are likely to intensify as implementation proceeds.
Gaza authorities reported what they described as at least 1,620 alleged ceasefire violations between October 10, 2026 and February 10, 2026. They said at least 601 Palestinians were killed and 1,607 were wounded in that period. Israel has rejected those figures and accused Hamas of reciprocal violations, noting Israeli soldier casualties.
The discrepancy in claims complicates the Board’s requirement that non-state armed groups be demilitarized before reconstruction can begin. Verification mechanisms will be central to any implementation plan. Who will monitor compliance, how violations will be recorded, and what thresholds will trigger sanctions remain unresolved.
Independent monitoring faces operational challenges in densely populated areas and active conflict zones. Access restrictions, disputed incident accounts and divergent forensic standards increase the risk of contested findings. Donors and members of the Board will demand robust, transparent verification to justify funding and political commitments.
The stakes are political as well as practical. The Board must balance pressure to move quickly on reconstruction with the need to avoid rebuilding under conditions that could enable renewed hostilities. The emperor has no clothes, and I’m telling you: without clear, mutually accepted monitoring and enforcement, reconstruction funds may fuel further instability rather than recovery.
Expect debates over sequencing—whether to start civilian reconstruction first or to tie all disbursements to verified demilitarization—to dominate negotiations. The outcome will determine not only the pace of rebuilding but also the credibility of international actors involved in the process.
Let’s tell the truth: reconstruction will stall if security and governance remain unpredictable. When fighting resumes, donor confidence and humanitarian access shrink rapidly. The Board’s proposal to attach an International Stabilization Force aims to fill that gap. Deployment rules, force composition and the relationship with local authorities remain unresolved. Without clear answers, pledged funds risk being insufficient or unusable.
Parallel pressure on Lebanon: incentives, borders and disarmament
The United States is pursuing a parallel, transactional approach in Lebanon. Envoy Tom Barrack and other US interlocutors have urged Lebanese authorities to constrain Hezbollah’s armed capacity in exchange for major economic incentives. The strategy ties disarmament or containment to energy-sector deals, border demarcation and access to Gulf and Western investment.
The emperor has no clothes, and I’m telling you: linking security steps to commercial deals raises immediate practical questions. Who verifies disarmament? How rapidly would investment flow? What guarantees protect civilians during any security transition? These questions are unresolved but central to whether incentives will produce change.
How the two tracks—an international stabilization force and US-led pressure in Lebanon—interact will shape reconstruction prospects. The outcome will influence the pace of rebuilding and the credibility of international actors involved in the process.
Let’s tell the truth: the proposal rests on a simple trade-off. Economic opportunity is meant to alter political calculations by offering reconstruction and investment in exchange for a reduction in Hezbollah‘s autonomy. Lebanon’s cabinet action to permit an army-led disarmament plan opened a narrow window for Washington and its partners to present that offer. The outcome will influence the pace of rebuilding and the credibility of international actors involved in the process.
Risks and fragility
The bargain is fragile. Hezbollah is not only an armed actor; it is woven into social services, political institutions and a powerful narrative of resistance. If promised investments do not arrive or if reciprocal steps by Israel—such as phased withdrawals from positions or fewer strikes—do not follow, the arrangement will lose credibility. Observers inside Lebanon and across the region already frame the deal either as an opportunity or as an imposition. That framing will determine whether incentives produce meaningful change or deepen polarization.
The emperor has no clothes, and I’m telling you: without clear deliverables, transparent timelines and safeguards for civilians, the initiative risks collapsing under its own contradictions. International partners must show results quickly if they expect local leaders and communities to reciprocate.
Why implementation matters
Let’s tell the truth: turning short-term security gains into durable political and economic settlements is harder than most donors admit.
The emperor has no clothes, and I’m telling you: success hinges on three concrete factors. First, coherent implementation that aligns security, reconstruction and governance timelines. Second, transparent commitments from international partners, with clear financing and measurable benchmarks. Third, a sustained reduction in violence that permits reconstruction and political bargains to take root.
Without those conditions, pledges become symbolic and fragile. International partners must show results quickly if they expect local leaders and communities to reciprocate. Otherwise reconstruction will stall and the risks of renewed conflict will persist.