By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Donald Trump has assembled a “board of peace” for Gaza, enlisting key figures like Marco Rubio and Tony Blair to oversee reconstruction and governance. The seven-member executive board, chaired by Trump, also includes Steve Witkoff, Ajay Banga, and Jared Kushner, each assigned specific portfolios vital to Gaza’s stabilization. This second phase of the US-brokered peace plan follows the release of hostages and a ceasefire, but challenges remain including the ongoing violence and humanitarian aid shortages. The plan also faces skepticism and calls for the full implementation of phase one, including the end of the war and full disarmament, before the peace can truly be built.
Read the original article here
Trump appoints Blair, Kushner and Rubio to Gaza ‘board of peace’? Well, that’s a mouthful, isn’t it? It certainly raises a lot of eyebrows, especially when you consider the individuals involved and the context of the situation. It’s hard not to feel a sense of bewilderment.
So, the question that immediately springs to mind is, what authority does Trump even have to establish a “Gaza Board of Peace?” It’s a valid question, and one that the mainstream media should be pressing for answers on. This whole thing feels… unconventional, to say the least.
And speaking of unconventional, let’s talk about the personnel. Jared Kushner, remember him? The same guy who supposedly tried to bring peace to the Middle East via a Facebook group chat with his college buddies during his father-in-law’s first term? It’s hard not to wonder about the qualifications here. And let’s not forget that Kushner is not currently a US official, which brings up serious questions of oversight and transparency.
Then there’s Tony Blair. The former British Prime Minister is a controversial figure, to say the least. And Senator Marco Rubio, another name on the list, is… well, he’s certainly a politician, and one who already seems to have his hands full managing Venezuela (or at least, that’s what some people are saying). It feels like a very strange collection of individuals to entrust with a sensitive and complex matter like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
What exactly will this “Board of Peace” be responsible for providing? It’s a vital question. What deliverables are we talking about? How will their efforts specifically impact the people of Gaza and Israel? We need details. Vague pronouncements about peace are simply not enough.
Another crucial question: who is funding this “Board of Peace”? And, perhaps more importantly, who will be funding any projects or initiatives that the board might propose? Given the history of the individuals involved, and the potential financial interests at play, the issue of funding is critical.
The phrase itself, “Board of Peace,” feels loaded. It’s hard to ignore the cynical undertones, and the sense that something else is really at play. Given the history of the region and the complexities of the conflict, the choice of words feels almost disrespectful. It’s almost like they’re using the word “peace” in a way that doesn’t actually mean peace.
The allegations of corruption surrounding some of the individuals involved are equally concerning. Is this a genuine effort at peacemaking, or is it an opportunity for personal enrichment? The whole situation reeks of potential conflicts of interest, and the public deserves to know the answers.
And the question of motives is paramount. Is this really about achieving peace, or is it about something else entirely? As one comment mentioned, there’s a certain… shall we say, predatory interest in Gaza. It’s hard to shake the feeling that this isn’t about altruism.
It’s also worth noting how words are used and then twisted. “Peace,” “Liberty,” “Freedom” – they’re all terms that can be co-opted and repurposed to serve ulterior motives. This makes it difficult to trust the narrative being presented.
The “board of peace” has some interesting branding for their intended genocide.
The fact that Kushner was supposedly in charge of Middle East peace during Trump’s first term, and that his efforts are now being revisited, raises further doubts. If he “solved the problem,” why are we revisiting it?
It’s hard to get past the feeling that this isn’t about peace at all. The very name is almost an ironic joke.
And what about Rubio? What exactly does he bring to the table? People have expressed concern that he’s already overextended. Is he supposed to manage Venezuela and Gaza? It just doesn’t seem plausible.
The choice of words feels deceptive, almost insulting. A “Board of Peace” is a misnomer, and the implications are unsettling. It all feels so… opportunistic.
And, of course, there’s the question of the Trump hotel. The entire situation feels designed to benefit a select few.
It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is a case of political posturing, self-enrichment, and a blatant disregard for the complexities of the situation. It’s a recipe for disaster.