Deep Dive: Board of Peace convenes after decades of international inaction on Palestinian demands to end Israeli occupation

The convening of the Board of Peace represents a response to longstanding Palestinian grievances regarding the Israeli occupation, framed within decades of perceived international inaction. From a geopolitical lens, this underscores persistent tensions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where key actors including Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and international bodies have vied for influence over territorial control and security arrangements. Strategic interests diverge sharply: Israel prioritizes security buffers and settlement expansion, while Palestinians seek sovereignty and statehood recognition. Historically, the conflict traces back to post-World War II partitions and wars in 1948 and 1967, embedding cultural narratives of displacement for Palestinians (Nakba) and existential security for Israelis. Regional intelligence reveals how Arab states' shifting alliances—from pan-Arab solidarity to normalization deals like the Abraham Accords—have diluted unified pressure on Israel. The Board of Peace's formation signals frustration with stalled diplomacy, such as the Oslo Accords' unfulfilled promises. Cross-border implications ripple through the Middle East, affecting migration flows, proxy conflicts involving Iran-backed groups, and U.S.-EU policy divergences. Beyond the region, global powers like the U.S. (primary Israeli ally) and Russia/China (supporters of Palestinian causes) face tests to their mediation credibility. Humanitarian crises in Gaza and the West Bank amplify calls for action, potentially influencing trade routes via the Suez and energy markets tied to regional stability. Looking ahead, this convening could catalyze renewed multilateral talks or exacerbate divisions if it fails to bridge gaps. Stakeholders must navigate cultural taboos around compromise, with outlook hinging on whether it pressures enforcement mechanisms like UN resolutions. Nuance lies in balancing legitimate security needs against occupation's legal status under international law.