Trump's Gaza Peace Board Meets in Washington: Can Deal-Making Fix the Middle East?

In a Washington DC conference room, 12 experts gathered around a mahogany table with a singular mission: end the 18-month Gaza conflict that has defied every diplomatic effort. This was the first official meeting of Donald Trump's newly formed Board of Peace, a body that promises to bring "business sense" to America's most intractable foreign policy challenge.

The Art of the Middle East Deal

This isn't your typical State Department initiative. The board includes former military generals, Middle East scholars, and notably, two Palestinian-Americans—a composition that signals Trump's willingness to break from traditional diplomatic orthodoxy. "We've tried the same approach for 70 years," Trump declared. "Time for a businessman's perspective."

The board's framework is deliberately sequential: humanitarian aid first, economic reconstruction second, political solutions last. At its core is an ambitious $500 billion international reconstruction fund for Gaza—a figure that dwarfs previous aid packages and reflects Trump's preference for big-ticket solutions.

The approach mirrors Trump's real estate philosophy: create value first, negotiate terms later. But can property development logic work where decades of diplomacy have failed?

The Graveyard of Peace Plans

History offers sobering lessons. Bill Clinton's Camp David summit (2000), George W. Bush's Roadmap (2003), Barack Obama's Kerry Initiative (2013-2014)—all collapsed under the weight of irreconcilable demands. Even Trump's own "Deal of the Century" from his first term never gained traction.

The structural problem remains unchanged: Israel demands security guarantees and Palestinian disarmament before any political concessions. Palestinians insist on ending occupation and establishing statehood first. It's a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma that has trapped negotiators for generations.

Gaza's reality complicates matters further. Hamas retains significant popular support, and it's unclear who would govern if Israeli forces withdraw. Egypt and Jordan remain reluctant to assume responsibility, while the Palestinian Authority's influence in Gaza is limited.

What's Different This Time?

Yet several factors distinguish this moment. The October 7 attacks created regional consensus that escalation serves no one's interests. Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, previously distant from Palestinian issues, now actively seek stability. Unlike the Biden administration, Trump has shown willingness to pressure Israel when it serves his broader agenda.

Rami Khouri, former president of the American University of Beirut and one of the board's Palestinian-American members, argues for a fundamental shift: "America must be a guarantor, not just a mediator." This means creating enforcement mechanisms that ensure compliance—something previous agreements lacked.

The board also benefits from Trump's transactional worldview. Where previous presidents got bogged down in historical grievances, Trump focuses on immediate interests. What does each side want most? What are they willing to trade?

The Limits of Deal-Making

But Middle East conflicts aren't Manhattan real estate deals. Religious conviction, historical memory, and national identity don't respond to market incentives. Trump's confidence in his negotiating prowess—"I make the best deals"—may encounter its ultimate test in a region where emotion often trumps economics.

The board faces immediate practical challenges. How do you rebuild Gaza while ensuring materials don't reach militants? Who polices a ceasefire when trust is nonexistent? How do you satisfy Israeli security needs while addressing Palestinian sovereignty demands?

Moreover, Trump's unpredictability, often an asset in business negotiations, could prove problematic in diplomacy where consistency and credibility matter. Regional leaders remember his abrupt policy reversals and may hedge their commitments accordingly.