Every day that Israeli forces carry out strikes in Gaza, the coalition supporting Trump’s Board of Peace comes under a little more strain. Arab and Muslim member nations have been explicit: they believe Israel is undermining the ceasefire through these operations, and they want the United States to apply pressure on its ally to stop.
Israel’s position is equally firm. The strikes, it says, target militants who threaten or attack Israeli forces — a legitimate security necessity within the framework of the ceasefire, which did not prohibit all military activity. Palestinians, including civilians, continue to be killed. The definition of what constitutes a ceasefire violation is itself contested.
The US has not publicly pressured Israel to halt the strikes. This restraint is consistent with the longstanding American posture of supporting Israel’s security operations, but it is creating friction with Arab board members who joined expecting American influence over Israeli behavior to be a feature of the arrangement.
If Arab and Muslim members conclude that the board is incapable of or unwilling to address Israeli conduct, their participation will become increasingly difficult to sustain. Their domestic audiences are watching the daily strikes and watching their governments sit at a table with the country conducting them. The political cost of continued board participation rises with each strike.
Trump’s board must find a way to address this tension — either by persuading Israel to exercise greater restraint, or by developing a framework that distinguishes between different types of military activity in ways that Arab members can accept. Thursday’s first meeting was the first test of whether the board can have that conversation openly and productively.