What is being done for Gaza?

Since its creation, the Board of Peace has been viewed by some as a potential “rival” to the United Nations (UN). The organization held its first official summit on February 19 this year. Nearly 50 country delegations gathered in Washington to negotiate practical solutions to the long-running conflict in the Gaza Strip. The talks focused on billions of dollars, new investments, and agreements. Although powerful European economies were not among the participants, wealthy states such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt were widely represented. The invitation of leaders from Central Asia—particularly Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan—also signals that the region is becoming increasingly integrated into global geopolitics.

Major plans were announced and many promises were made, but one question remains: to what extent will this Trump-led initiative translate its high-profile pledges into reality? How effective will the proposed solutions be? In short, what will Gaza’s future be?

First summit, first promises

The platform, launched at the initiative of U.S. President Donald Trump, aims to resolve global conflicts through rapid political agreements, with its main focus currently on the Gaza Strip. More than 50 delegations took part in the first summit. Nearly 27 of them were registered as official members, while the rest attended as observers. Organizers presented the structure as a fast decision-making mechanism designed to operate without bureaucratic obstacles.

At the start of the summit, Trump delivered remarks lasting nearly an hour and said the United States was planning to allocate up to $10 billion for Gaza. He also stated that, with contributions from other countries, an additional aid package of more than $7 billion had been formed. According to him, the funds would be directed toward restoring infrastructure, deploying temporary security forces, and restructuring the local law enforcement system.

“It seems they will do it, but we still need to clarify this. However, Gaza will no longer be a breeding ground for radicalism and terror. To put an end to that, today I am pleased to announce that Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, the UAE, Morocco, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Kuwait have allocated more than $7 billion in total for the aid package. This is a very impressive result,” Trump said.

Recognizing that financial commitments alone would not achieve the intended outcome, Trump also announced the deployment of military forces to Gaza. In his speech, he described the initiative as “a new model” that would produce tangible political results.

“Albania, Kosovo and Kazakhstan have committed to providing troops and police forces to ensure stability in Gaza. Egypt and Jordan are also providing very significant support — they are allocating forces for reliable Palestinian police units, conducting training, and offering comprehensive assistance,” he said.

However, from a political analysis perspective, several questions remain open. First, the announced $10 billion would require approval by the U.S. Congress. Trump’s promise of such a large international aid package—before resolving domestic debates with Democrats—and the lack of clarity about where the funds would come from have fueled doubts about the feasibility of the pledge. Second, the issue of disarming armed groups in Gaza has not been addressed. The absence of a clear commitment from Hamas to fully surrender weapons casts uncertainty over the durability of any peace plan. Third, deploying an international security force would require the consent of regional states, which could create major diplomatic complications.

One of the most controversial aspects of the summit was Trump’s indirect criticism of the UN system. He accused existing international mechanisms of being slow and insisted the new platform would be faster and more results-oriented.

“We will work very closely with the UN. We will restore it to its previous standing. I think the UN has enormous potential — truly enormous potential. But so far it has not fully demonstrated that potential. There are eight wars in the world, and I haven’t spoken with them about a single one,” Trump said.

He also said he believed the Board of Peace could one day oversee the UN, manage it, and even finance it.

“One day I will not be here, but the United Nations will be — and I think it will be much stronger. The Board of Peace will, in a sense, monitor the UN and ensure it works properly. We will make sure its infrastructure and conditions are good, because they need help — especially financial help,” Trump said.

However, experts argue that without broad legitimacy, wide membership, and binding enforcement mechanisms, any initiative will struggle to play a decisive role in the global security architecture. While some states have backed the council, the cautious approach of major international players could limit its real influence. With uncertainty even surrounding whether all 27 members will remain permanent participants, it may be too early to make firm judgments about the organization’s future.

Overall, the Washington summit featured major political statements and financial promises. Yet establishing sustainable peace in Gaza requires not only funding, but also deep political agreements, trust, and regional consensus. Otherwise, the Board of Peace risks remaining a high-profile initiative with little lasting impact.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s remarks also stood out for emphasizing the initiative’s practical direction. Rubio described the Gaza conflict as “a unique crisis that ordinary international institutions have been unable to resolve,” and again underscored the need for a new mechanism. He warned participants that “there is no Plan B for Gaza — Plan B is returning to war,” and stressed that only the path of lasting peace should be pursued.

“There is no Plan B for Gaza. Plan B means returning to war. No one here wants that. The only path, Plan A, is to rebuild Gaza in such a way that stable and lasting peace prevails there — so that people can live side by side, and no one ever again has to fear returning to conflict, war, human suffering, and destruction,” Rubio said.

Many other speeches were delivered during the summit, with members briefly outlining their positions on Gaza. The main themes were achieving a sustainable ceasefire, creating a new diplomatic mechanism, and criticizing the ineffectiveness of existing international institutions. However, clear implementation mechanisms and funding sources remain unresolved.

What are Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan prepared to do for Gaza?

As leading countries in Central Asia, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are seeking to play a more active role on the global stage not only in economic and security matters, but also in humanitarian efforts and in shaping international order. At the Board of Peace summit held on February 19 to address Gaza’s problems, both countries announced that they were ready to contribute. These decisions reflect not only regional policy, but also a broader sense of responsibility.

Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, speaking at the first meeting of the Board of Peace in Washington, officially stated that Uzbekistan was prepared to provide assistance to the Gaza Strip. He emphasized a commitment not only in words but through practical contributions.

“I want to emphasize that Uzbekistan is ready, to the extent possible, to contribute to the construction of housing, kindergartens, schools, and hospitals in this area.

There is symbolic meaning in the fact that this summit is being held at the Donald Trump Institute of Peace. Our meeting is a vivid expression of our shared aspiration for international solidarity, peace, and improving the situation in the Middle East.

We must use this historic opportunity to build a New Gaza — a region with a thriving economy and decent living conditions for its people,” the Uzbek leader said.

The president also noted that the council’s working mechanisms must be based on support from the local population, stressing that “any external governance must rely on the region’s internal will.”

“I am confident that the council’s work will help create favorable conditions for Gaza’s economic and social recovery. At the same time, any external governance mechanism for Gaza must rely on the unconditional internal support of the sector’s population,” the president of Uzbekistan said.

Uzbekistan described the initiative as an important step toward strengthening international solidarity and peace. In his remarks, Mirziyoyev emphasized the need for global cooperation to “rebuild Gaza” and restore a peaceful and prosperous life for residents. He framed such support as serving both economic and social recovery and contributing to regional stability.

Trump also stated that Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and other countries would allocate around $7 billion in total for Gaza’s reconstruction.

Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev also presented broad proposals on assistance for Gaza at the summit. According to his statement, Kazakhstan is ready not only to provide financial aid but also to participate directly in the recovery process.

“Kazakhstan is prepared to support the International Stabilization Forces by sending medical units with a field hospital, as well as observers to the Civil-Military Coordination Center,” Tokayev said.

He added that the country is interested in contributing across areas ranging from humanitarian assistance to infrastructure reconstruction and projects such as building housing, schools, and hospitals. Such projects could be implemented through international companies. Kazakhstan also intends to provide humanitarian food assistance in Gaza and neighboring areas, including supplies such as wheat.

Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan have signaled readiness to contribute not only through humanitarian support, but also through practical steps aimed at sustainable recovery and regional peace. Their decisions are presented as concrete initiatives that can help strengthen peace and support civilians in cooperation with the international community.

In conclusion, expectations for the Board of Peace are high if the United States can deliver on its commitments and if the outlined plans are fully implemented. A conflict that has lasted for decades, however, can only be resolved through unity and coordinated action.