For Arab nations that have joined Trump’s Board of Peace, a fundamental question underlies their participation: can they trust the United States to be an honest broker between Israeli demands and Palestinian needs? The US’s historically close relationship with Israel — and the Trump administration’s particular affinity for the Netanyahu government — makes that question acutely relevant.
Arab and Muslim board members have been explicit about their concerns. They have accused Israel of undermining the ceasefire through daily strikes and want the US to apply pressure on its ally. They have argued that Israeli withdrawal is as important as Hamas disarmament. They are watching whether the board becomes a vehicle for advancing US-Israeli positions or a genuine forum for balanced negotiation.
The US has not publicly pressured Israel to halt its strikes. It has supported Israel’s right to target militants threatening its forces. It has made Hamas disarmament the central condition for progress on all other fronts — a sequencing that aligns with Israel’s position. From Arab members’ perspective, these signals raise questions about whether American chairmanship of the board represents genuine balance or sophisticated advocacy for one side.
At the same time, Arab nations joined the board voluntarily and have made concrete contributions — including Indonesia’s training of up to 8,000 stabilization force soldiers. Their participation signals a judgment that the board is worth engaging with, at least for now. They are betting that American involvement, despite its pro-Israel orientation, is more likely to produce a workable outcome than the alternatives.
The sustainability of that bet depends on what the board actually delivers. If Arab members see genuine American pressure on Israel — or at least genuine progress on Palestinian governance and humanitarian conditions — their participation will be validated. If not, the board’s Arab membership may become increasingly symbolic.