Who Invited Bibi?
History suggests these kinds of projects often function more as branding exercises than as credible pathways to lasting peace. When you look closely at how they’re structured, who benefits, and what peace processes actually require, the reasons for scepticism become fairly clear.
Firstly, a genuine peace process between Israelis and Palestinians is complex, which requires broad international legitimacy, patient diplomacy, and buy-in from the parties involved. Durable agreements, even partial ones, usually emerge from multilateral frameworks with experienced negotiators, regional stakeholders, and sustained institutional support. A personality-driven initiative centred on Trump's band of merry shysters and hand-picked advisory group - some of whom have expressed anti-Muslim sentiment- struggles to meet that standard. Without formal authority from both sides, any board risks being little more than a parallel talking shop.
Secondly, there’s the question of incentives. Modern politics, especially in the United States, is intertwined with fundraising networks, consulting arrangements, speaking circuits, media ventures, and investment opportunities. When high-profile political figures launch new initiatives, whether think tanks, foundations, or peace panels, they often generate significant financial ecosystems around them. These can include donor flows, paid advisory roles, conference appearances, book deals, and media partnerships. Even if participants claim humanitarian motives, the structure often creates opportunities for personal or political gain.
Donald Trump’s own record reinforces this concern. Throughout his business and political career, he has blended public positioning with private commercial interests. Critics point to the overlap between branding, licensing, and political visibility in his ventures. Some estimates indicate his personal wealth has roughly doubled since late 2024. He has shown a strong desire to develop Gaza into a large-scale real estate project, calling it the Riviera of the Middle East. That does not automatically mean any future peace-related initiative would be corrupt, but it does give observers reasonable grounds to scrutinise whether financial or reputational benefits might accrue to organisers and allies. Involving Kushner and Blair in this scenario is a dead giveaway.
Thirdly, there is the issue of perceived neutrality. For any mediation effort to succeed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both sides must at least believe the mediator is broadly even-handed. Trump’s presidency was marked by policies widely viewed, particularly in Palestinian and much of international opinion, as strongly favouring Israel. These included the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the framing of the Peace to Prosperity plan, which Palestinian leadership rejected outright. Let's not forget the billions American taxpayers spent to fund Israel’s military and the fact that Trump is not all that fond of Muslims. Because trust is already fragile, any initiative closely associated with that record faces a steep credibility deficit from the outset.
Fourth, durable peace requires engagement with underlying political realities, not just high-level deal-making rhetoric. The conflict involves borders, security arrangements, settlements, refugees, governance, and deep historical grievances. It also requires internal political legitimacy within both Israeli and Palestinian societies. Quick, top-down proposals, especially those heavily marketed in the media, tend to underestimate how entrenched these issues are. Without sustained grassroots legitimacy and institutional follow-through, even well-intentioned agreements often collapse.
There’s also a pattern worth noting in modern peace branding. Announcing a bold initiative can generate headlines, reinforce political identity, and mobilise supporters, even if the practical pathway to implementation is thin. In a polarised media environment, simply being seen to do something big on the global stage can carry political value. That dynamic can reward symbolic moves over the slow, often frustrating work real diplomacy requires.
Trump lacks depth in geopolitics, history, or nuanced policy, often relying on simplistic or impulsive rhetoric. He lacks the intellectual capacity and international credibility to make this work. His public gaffes, rambling speeches, and preference for gut instincts over expert advice raise doubts about his ability to handle intricate international dynamics. The Board's vague structure, prioritising prestige over established treaties, has been called a crock of shit unlikely to achieve lasting peace.
Ultimately, lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians will almost certainly require a broad international framework, credible security guarantees, economic reconstruction, and, most importantly, political legitimacy among the people who must live with the outcome. Any initiative that appears heavily branded, financially intertwined with its organisers, or lacking clear buy-in from both sides faces an uphill battle.
So when observers question whether a Trump-linked board of peace would deliver meaningful results, they’re not simply being partisan. They are pointing to structural realities: conflicts of interest, credibility gaps, incentive problems, and the long historical record of peace processes that only succeed when they are inclusive, patient, and institutionally grounded.
I could have saved myself all the time and effort writing this and my audience all the time and effort reading it, with one short sentence: “Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to invite Netanyahu to the board?”
To ensure I’m able to keep sharing my thoughts as clearly as possible despite my gradual cognitive decline, I’ve started relying on Grammarly to polish sentence structure, improve clarity and conciseness (helping rein in my tendency to ramble a bit), suggest words when they slip my mind, and ensure each post stays true to my own natural tone and voice. I write it, Grammarly fixes it. Respect for the reader.
If you’re enjoying my posts, please consider chucking in a few bob to support me.
