By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Opposition is growing against President Trump’s Gaza Peace Board, with France expressing reluctance to participate due to concerns over undermining the UN’s role in Gaza. A source from the French government stated they would not favorably respond to Trump’s invitation, citing the board’s scope as exceeding the Gaza framework. Canada has also stated it will not pay for a seat on the board, despite initially signaling interest. The board, designed to govern and reconstruct post-war Gaza, has received invitations to over 60 countries, but has been met with skepticism.
Read the original article here
Trump’s Gaza Peace Board Faces Opposition As France Pulls Back, Canada Refuses To Pay
It seems the whole idea of a “peace board” orchestrated by Donald Trump, particularly one focused on the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is facing significant headwinds right out of the gate. The concept, which appears to involve soliciting financial contributions from various nations to participate, has been met with skepticism and outright rejection from several key players. It’s almost comical how this venture, dubbed a “peace board,” has been perceived, especially given the context of Trump’s previous statements and actions related to international diplomacy and his own personal financial interests. The fact that he seemed to be making members pay him is, as many have pointed out, quite outrageous.
The reaction from France, a major player on the international stage, is particularly telling. Their withdrawal, likely due to concerns regarding UN principles, highlights the inherent problems with a board that seemingly bypasses established international bodies and charges countries for participation. This resonates with the view that this board is not a genuine effort towards peace, but rather a way for Trump to benefit financially. The idea that this could potentially sideline existing international structures is a clear red flag for many nations, and it is a nonstarter.
Canada’s stance is also noteworthy. While they weren’t explicitly asked to pay, their refusal to do so, coupled with their overall skepticism, indicates a broader lack of confidence in the board’s legitimacy. Canada’s presence on the board, whether by invitation or not, could have been interpreted as an attempt to lend credibility to the project. However, their reluctance to commit any financial resources underscores the precariousness of the entire endeavor. Their concerns around Trump’s actions and intentions are certainly valid.
The central premise of the “peace board” itself seems flawed and has come under harsh criticism. Many view it as a scheme to funnel money into Trump’s family coffers. The fact that Trump would have lifetime control over the board, including the power to name his successor and dictate all decisions, makes it difficult to view the project as anything other than a personal power grab. The idea of this “peace board” with a leader who can overrule everything is not well received.
The financial aspect of this venture is also a major point of contention. The notion of countries paying large sums, potentially up to a billion dollars, to participate raises serious ethical questions. The concern that this money would be directly diverted into Trump’s private accounts further fuels the perception that this is nothing more than a personal grift. Why should any country contribute even a penny to this private event? It’s a “Pay to Play” tactic, where countries pay into Trump’s coffers for the “privilege” of joining the board.
Further adding to the concerns are the board’s alleged true purposes. The documentation, it seems, doesn’t even mention Gaza, which is the stated reason for its formation. Instead, it is being pitched as a replacement for the UN, with Trump at the helm for life. This level of control, combined with the financial element, paints a picture of a board designed for personal gain and political influence, rather than a genuine effort to foster peace. It is the type of mafia strategy.
The response from the international community has been largely negative, with many expressing bewilderment and even open ridicule. The European response has been one of laughter and cusswords. The fact that the Republican Party seems to have abandoned their allies has only deepened the mistrust.
The only apparent exception to this pattern is Hungary, whose leader, Viktor Orban, has reportedly accepted the invitation to join. This has also caused unease, especially knowing Orban is a close Trump ally and may commit to donating a billion dollars to Trump.
The entire “peace board” initiative appears to be collapsing under the weight of its own dubious foundations. From the financial demands to the lifetime control, it is a project that raises serious concerns about corruption, abuse of power, and the overall integrity of international diplomacy. The lack of legitimacy, the financial demands, and Trump’s complete control make it difficult to see any genuine attempt at peacemaking.