Peaceful Protest Against Israel President Isaac Hertzog's official visit to Australia to be held at Peace Park, Lismore NSW, on Monday 9 February 2026 at 5:30pm. Also at 23 other venues across the country

 

 

Spearheaded by the Palestine Action Group Sydney, 24 peaceful protest gatherings have been organised around Australia to express opposition to the official visit of Israel President Isaac Herzog and to confirm condemnation of the State of Israel's policies and actions taken in its continuing illegal occupation of Palestinian Territory - of disproportionate war and genocide in the Gaza Strip and violent dispossession & ethic cleansing in the West Bank.

Alleged war criminal Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (subject of an International Court of Justice arrest warrant on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least 8 October 2023) in recent years appears to enjoy the political support of President Herzog.

President Herzog seems to be harbouring the delusion that one of the two principal aims of his visit is to convince Australia and Australians of the error of their ways over the last 77-78 years in both endorsing the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and supporting a Two State solution to the Question of Palestine.

It appears that Messr. Herzog choses to believe that Australia's long history of supporting international law and its people's abhorrence of the crime of genocide is due to the Left's nefarious influence and to a "brainwash campaign" aimed at turning the population against Jews ahead of his visit to Australia.

AUSTRALIA--US RELATIONS: Wither to Australia in 2026?

Australia is well aware it is not at the geopolitical centre of the world but in the last 125 years it has earned its place — diplomatically, militarily, economically and by its long time support of rules-based international law.

Nevertheless, it is but one of over 200 countries across the globe of which 195 are currently recognised as sovereign nations.

It ranks 55 out of 223 countries when it comes to population size.

As well as being considered an advanced economy, usually ranked in the global top twenty for national economies and gross domestic product per capita. While according to International Monetary Fund data, based on the Purchasing Power Parity weight (PPP) of its own gross domestic product it contributes 0.95 per cent of the combined gross domestic product of the World in 2025. Which probably places it in the top 10 per cent based on PPP weight.

Australia could be considered one of the Middle Powers and, in these uncertain times when one of the two Great Powers, an increasingly erratic United States of America, publishes the following national defence strategy, everyone in Australia should note its contents.

It will add much needed context to the decisions made by the Australian Government over the coming decade.

IMAGE: US 2026 National Defense Strategy (2026USNDS) cover page

Late on 23 January 2026 in Washington DC the renamed U.S. Dept of War released its 34 page "2026 National Defense Strategy" (2006NDS).

This strategy document signals that it is U.S. President Donald J. Trump's intention to review all existing defence and security treaties, pacts, agreements and partnerships. Perhaps even ripping up some or all if the mood takes him.

The bottom line of this 2006NDS document is;

• the United States sees its current allies as having an obligation to defend U.S. military/trade interests around the world, however it doesn't see itself as having the same full reciprocal obligations to protect these allies when they are under threat.

• "Model" allies will fund their own defence & purchase their war matériel from U.S. industries or their commercial partners; and

• There is a stated intention on the part of the U.S. for its Trumpian-style bullying of allies to continue.

The document is quite clear about the American position on specific topics.

European interests no longer matter to the United States. Europe must defend itself & the U.S. will give limited materiel/technical assistance if its own interests are involved.

To that end America intends to remain involved with NATO as one of its member nations via the U.S. Dept. of War to better account for the Russian threat to American interests. At the same time the 2026NDS indicates it will scale back financial support of NATO as it prioritises defending the U.S. Homeland and deterring China.

Canada and Mexico as only two nations sharing land borders with the United States are expected to gear their security strategies to defend the US homeland.

Israel will continue to receive unspecified U.S. support as a valuable ally in the Middle East. It is seen as coming close to the expressed ideal of a model ally.

South Korea is to receive more limited support in its region.

The US will continue to strike at "Islamic terrorists" in Africa and aggressively prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The US 2026NDS also pays particular attention to the Indo-Pacific, which it expects "will soon make up more than half of the global economy". The focus is on the Western Pacific "First Island Chain" 

Source: Researchgate, 
Overview map of First and Second Island Chain Source: Catama (2015)

from Japan through Okinawa onto Taiwan and the northern Philippines before ending in Borneo.

There is an underlying assumption that America's allies in the Western Pacific will align themselves with U.S. foreign and defence policies with regard the Western Pacific because they would also view China as dangerous to their interests.

With the Trump Administration preferred scenario being the United States and its allies fortifying and policing this island chain as a way of restricting China's navy and its sea trade — thus allowing the U.S. to take the lion's share of future trade growth anticipated in the Indo-Pacific.

There is no specific mention of Australia in the entire 2026NDS document. This complete lack of reference to Australia in a document, signalling an attitudinal change to alliance per se on the part of the United States and a commitment to review existing alliances, throws a high level of uncertainty across, at last count, 253 bilateral treaties, agreements and conventions in force between the U.S. and Australia.

A level of uncertainty which may become uncomfortable when it comes to the U.S. plan to contain China in the Indo-Pacific.

In this, the 2nd Trump Administration's position departs markedly from the 2022NDS of the Biden Administration which placed value on its relationship with Australia. 

Excerpt from the Biden US 2022 National Security Strategy

The United States in this reworking of its national defence strategy states that it "will prioritise addressing the most consequential and grave threats to Americans’ interests. We will revamp our network of allies and partners to meet the threats we face."

So how is the rest of the world reacting?

The World, Berlin Edition, 26.01.26: "Right from the introduction written by Defense Secretary Hegseth, it becomes clear once again that Trump wants a complete break with the system the West built after 1945....The multilateral institutions built after the horrors of World War II, which underpin democratically mandated international law, are incompatible with "America First"; for Trump, they are merely an illusory "abstraction."....Trump's America does not want to isolate itself. But the sole principle of future defense is to focus on US interests."

European Policy Centre 26.01.26: "The Pentagon published its new National Defense Strategy (NDS) late on 23 January, and defence experts across Europe did not have to look hard to spot a strategic shift. The 2026 NDS is not an incremental update but a deliberate reordering of American defence priorities and expectations.

The most consequential shift is the move from integrated deterrence to an explicit hierarchy of priorities. Rather than attempting to manage multiple challenges simultaneously, the new strategy ranks threats and missions plainly. Defending the US homeland and deterring China sit at the top. Everything else, including Europe, is secondary.

Fortress America. Homeland defence now serves as the organising principle of American strategy, not a supporting task. The NDS frames borders, air and missile defence, cyber resilience, and the Western Hemisphere as core military priorities. It openly revives a Monroe Doctrine–style approach, naming Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Gulf of Mexico as key terrain to be controlled and defended. Forward deterrence abroad is no longer the default expression of US security; territorial defence at home is."

Sunday Independent, Dublin, 25.01.26: "The post continued the threatening and menacing tone the president had expressed during his Davos address.

As did the publication of the US National Defence Strategy late Friday night. Released by secretary of defence/war, Pete Hegseth, it's only the fourth sentence of the introduction before Greenland is first mentioned, and then repeated.

It speaks of the need to "secure key terrain in the Western Hemisphere", that the US would "no longer cede access to or influence over" that key terrain, and that the department is providing the president with "credible options to guarantee US military and commercial access to key terrain… especially Greenland".

None of that sounds like a president who has changed his mind on something that has been repeatedly referred to, since inauguration, and for years, as a key priority of this administration, namely "acquiring Greenland".

The Pioneer, New Delhi, 25.01.26: 'The 34-page page document, the first since 2022, was highly political for a military blueprint, criticising partners from Europe to Asia for relying on previous US administrations to subsidise their defence.

It called for "a sharp shift - in approach, focus, and tone." That translated to a blunt assessment that allies would take on more of the burden countering nations from Russia to North Korea. "For too long, the U.S. Government neglected - even rejected - putting Americans and their concrete interests first," read the opening sentence. It capped off a week of animosity between President Donald Trump's administration and traditional allies like Europe, with Trump threatening to impose tariffs on some European partners to press a bid to acquire Greenland before announcing a deal that lowered the temperature.

As allies confront what some see as a hostile attitude from the US, they will almost certainly be unhappy to see that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's department will provide "credible options to guarantee U.S. Military and commercial access to key terrain," especially Greenland and the Panama Canal. Following a tiff this week at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, the strategy at once urges cooperation with Canada and other neighbours while still issuing a stark warning.

"We will engage in good faith with our neighbors, from Canada to our partners in Central and South America, but we will ensure that they respect and do their part to defend our shared interests," the document says. "And where they do not, we will stand ready to take focused, decisive action that concretely advances U.S. Interests." '

The Korean Times, Seoul, 25.01.26: "Seoul is expected to receive a detailed explanation about the new strategy as Elbridge Colby, the U.S. under secretary of defense for policy, arrived here on Sunday for a three-day visit. Colby, who played a central role in drafting the new defense strategy, is scheduled to meet senior South Korean officials, including Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back, to explain Washington’s approach and seek cooperation on implementing the new framework.

Ahead of the visit, the U.S. Department of Defense said Colby would travel to South Korea and Japan to promote Trump’s security approach of “peace through strength.” The Pentagon said the trip emphasizes the importance of U.S. alliances in the Indo-Pacific region as Washington moves to recalibrate deterrence responsibilities among allies....During his visit, Colby is also scheduled to tour Camp Humphreys, the largest U.S. military base overseas. He will travel to Japan following his Korea visit as part of the same regional tour."

The Express On Sunday, London, 25.01.26: "A YEAR ago, newly sworn in President Donald Trump announced in his inaugural address that the "golden age of America begins right now". From that moment, he instituted a "shock and awe" strategy of steering the country hard to the political Right. Having experienced the first Trump administration, the world thought it was prepared, but it did not expect what followed....Most controversially, however, Trump has reshaped geopolitics into one bifurcated between the US and China: Trump's Corollary.....At the one-year anniversary of President Trump's second term, the question is can the "art of the deal" change geopolitics and keep the Nato alliance intact?

Whether one likes him or not, Trump is now one of the most consequential presidents in history. His embrace and deployment of American self-belief and military prowess have set him apart from recent predecessors.

Dramatic change does always come at a cost and the question remains whether the old alliances that held together in the previous world order will adapt to the new one."

In Australia the response is along the lines of.... 

Embassy of Australia, 2026, Australia and the United States: "Australia and the United States established diplomatic relations on 8 January 1940. Following the establishment of Australian and US Legations in March and July 1940 respectively, the White House announced the elevation of the Legations to Embassy status on 9 July 1946. Australia's first Ambassador to the United States, Norman J O Makin, presented his credentials to the US Government on 11 September 1946. The first US Ambassador to Australia, Robert Butler, presented his credentials on 25 September 1946......A central pillar of relations between Australia and the United States is the 'ANZUS' Treaty, which was originally an agreement between Australia, New Zealand and the United States. The ANZUS Treaty was signed by the parties in San Francisco in 1951 and entered into force in 1952. The ANZUS Treaty underpins the Australia-United States Alliance. It binds Australia and the United States to consult on mutual threats, and, in accordance with our respective constitutional processes, to act to meet common dangers. Australia invoked the ANZUS Treaty for the first time on 14 September 2001 in response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September."

 

SBS News online, 31 January 2026: "Donald Trump has started 2026 with US military strikes on Venezuela, threats of an invasion into Greenland and a continuation of his administration's tariff trade war with friends and enemies alike.

While such shocks have become familiar during the controversial president’s two terms in office, they are increasingly testing the tolerance of America’s partners and prompting fresh questions in Australia.

Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, highlighted these concerns in his address to the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this month.

"Every day we're reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry, that the rules based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer. And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along, to hope that compliance will buy safety. Well, it won't. So, what are our options?"

In response to President Trump's trade tariffs and his stated desire to make Canada the 51st state of the U-S, Mr Carney's government has chosen to move Canada away from its historically close relationship with its southern neighbour.

Dr Emma Shortis, director of the International and Security Affairs Program at The Australia Institute, is one of a number of foreign policy experts who argue it's time for Australia to do the same.

"This is a president who is unconstrained and who is incredibly dangerous. And for Australia to tie not only our own security, but the security of our region to that again, is incredibly risky and undermines our regional relationships. That risk will only increase as Australia remains tied to this rogue power that is going to continue acting out. There's not many universes in which Trump's behaviour becomes constructive."

A November YouGov poll, commissioned by The Australia Institute, suggests that only 16 per cent of Australians believe the United States is a “very reliable” security ally while a previous poll in May found that 54.2 per cent wanted a more independent foreign policy.

So what has led so many to question an alliance that has defined much of modern Australian history?

The economy and national security are two key pillars of the US-Australia relationship often cited by Labor and the Coalition.

Dr Shortis argues the economic relationship with the US has become increasingly volatile under President Trump.

"The Trump administration has ripped up Australia's free trade agreement with the United States. It is trashing all the rules of global trade, which were of course imperfect, but which for the most part benefited Australia and created prosperity in Australia. Trump is trashing that and that is a risk to our security, our economic security."....

It can be difficult to understand what this decoupling of the US and Australia could look like.

Dr Emma Shortis says a first step from the federal government could be scrutinising the deals and alliances it holds with the US such as the AUKUS submarine deal, which could cost Australians up to $368 billion.

"So I think a starting point is with democratic accountability and scrutiny of the deals that we have with the United States in the first place. And I think what that could look like, for example, is a parliamentary inquiry into the AUKUS submarine deal, which the United Kingdom has had an inquiry, the United States has had its own review. There's no reason that Australia can't have a review of its own. That will bring up many questions I think about Australia's broader relationship with the United States issues of sovereignty and independence. And I think that can, I suppose, get the ball rolling in what a reframed relationship with the United States might mean."

What leaders like Canada's Mark Carney are pushing for is middle power countries like Canada and Australia to draw closer together in favour of orbiting a major power like the US or China.

"The middle powers must act together, because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu. But we believe that from the fracture, we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just. This is the task of the middle powers, the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and most to gain from genuine cooperation."

Dr Shortis says this focus on interdependence is key.

"So building up our regional relationships in particular around climate action and around public health, around education, around the things that really do make us safer. And building our networks and relationships in that way, much in the way that Mark Carney described. Building coalitions, building alliances around shared interests and around shared values."....

Board Of Peace™. Registered 22.01.26, no fixed address. Donald J. Trump, sole trader.

 

IMAGE: The Guardian, 23 January 2026

At a side event to the January 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland the US Trump Administration 'birthed' its new organisation which allegedly "seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict" and which apparently intends to sideline what its creators see as a less "nimble and effective international peace-building body" which happens to have stood the test of time for the last eighty years.

The Board of Peace foundational charter, as published, raises a suspicion that it was drafted with more than passing reference to model rules for exclusive & expensive sporting clubs. While its Chair and the composition of the Executive Board all but guarantee it will be under the coercive control of Donald J. Trump.

Chairman of the Board of Peace as of 22 January 2026:

• Donald J. Trump

Seven Members of the Executive Board of the Board Of Peace as of 22 January 2026:

• Marco Rubio, U.S. Secretary of State

• Steve Witkoff, U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East

• Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law

• Sir Tony Blair, former U.K. prime minister

• Marc Rowan, CEO, Apollo

• Ajay Banga, World Bank president

• Robert Gabriel, security advisor

Nineteen Ordinary Members of Board Of Peace as of 22 January 2026:

• Isa bin Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, minister of the prime minister’s court, Bahrain

• Nasser Bourita, minister of foreign affairs, Morocco

• Javier Milei, president, Argentina

• Nikol Pashinyan, prime minister, Armenia

• Ilham Aliyev, President, Azerbaijan

• Rosen Zhelyazkov, prime minister, Bulgaria

• Viktor Orban, prime minister, Hungary

• Prabowo Subianto, president, Indonesia

• Ayman Al Safadi, minister of foreign affairs, Jordan

• Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, president, Kazakhstan

• Vjosa Osmani-Sadriu, president, Kosovo

• Mian Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, prime minister, Pakistan

• Santiago Peña, president, Paraguay

• Mohammed Bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, president, Qatar

• Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, minister of foreign affairs, Saudi Arabia

• Hakan Fidan, minister of foreign affairs, Turkey

• Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak, special envoy to the U.S. for the UAE

• Shavkat Mirziyoyev, president, Uzbekistan

• Gombojavyn Zandanshatar, prime minister, Mongolia

US President Trump also extended invitations to twenty-seven other countries to join his Board of Peace:

• Australia

• Austria

• Brazil

• China

• Croatia

• Cyprus

• Finland

• Germany

• Greece

• India

• Ireland

• Italy

• Japan

• Netherlands

• New Zealand

• Oman

• Poland

• Portugal

• Republic of Korea

• Romania

• Russian Federation

• Singapore

• Spain

• Switzerland

• Thailand

• Ukraine

• United Kingdom

The United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Ireland, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Slovenia, Norway, Cyprus, China, Russia, and Israel were among nations absent from the signing and, although a handful of countries are expected to join the Board at a later date, there are also other nations which have specifically rejected or are reluctant to accept Trump's invitation.

It is reported that the State of Israel expects to be appointed to the Executive at some time in the future.

Twenty-seven signatures on 22 January 2026 doesn't suggest red-hot international enthusiasm.

CHARTER OF BOARD OF PEACE as of 22 January 2026:

CHARTER OF THE BOARD OF PEACE

PREAMBLE

Declaring that durable peace requires pragmatic judgment, common-sense solutions, and the courage to depart from approaches and institutions that have too often failed;

Recognizing that lasting peace takes root when people are empowered to take ownership and responsibility over their future;

Affirming that only sustained, results-oriented partnership, grounded in shared burdens and commitments, can secure peace in places where it has for too long proven elusive;

Lamenting that too many approaches to peace-building foster perpetual dependency, and institutionalize crisis rather than leading people beyond it;

Emphasizing the need for a more nimble and effective international peace-building body; and

Resolving to assemble a coalition of willing States committed to practical cooperation and effective action,

Judgment guided and justice honored, the Parties hereby adopt the Charter for the Board of Peace.

Article 1: Mission

CHAPTER I-PURPOSES AND FUNCTIONS

The Board of Peace is an international organization that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict. The Board of Peace shall undertake such peace-building functions in accordance with international law and as may be approved in accordance with this Charter, including the development and dissemination of best practices capable of being applied by all nations and communities seeking peace.

CHAPTER II

MEMBERSHIP

Article 2.1: Member States
Membership in the Board of Peace is limited to States invited to participate by the Chairman, and commences upon notification that the State has consented to be bound by this Charter, in accordance with Chapter XI.

Article 2.2: Member State Responsibilities

(a) Each Member State shall be represented on the Board of Peace by its Head of State or Government.

(b) Each Member State shall support and assist with Board of Peace operations consistent with their respective domestic legal authorities. Nothing in this Charter shall be construed to give the Board of Peace jurisdiction within the territory of Member States, or require Member States to participate in a particular peace-building mission, without their consent.

Article 2.2: Member State Responsibilities

(a) Each Member State shall be represented on the Board of Peace by its Head of State or Government.

(b) Each Member State shall support and assist with Board of Peace operations consistent with their respective domestic legal authorities. Nothing in this Charter shall be construed to give the Board of Peace jurisdiction within the territory of Member States, or require Member States to participate in a particular peace-building mission, without their consent.

(c) Each Member State shall serve a term of no more than three years from this Charter’s entry into force, subject to renewal by the Chairman. The three-year membership term shall not apply to Member States that contribute more than USD $1,000,000,000 in cash funds to the Board of Peace within the first year of the Charter’s entry into force.

Article 2.3: Termination of Membership

Membership shall terminate upon the earlier of: (i) expiration of a three-year term, subject to Article 2.2(c) and renewal by the Chairman; (ii) withdrawal, consistent with Article 2.4; (iii) a removal decision by the Chairman, subject to a veto by a two-thirds majority of Member States: or (iv) dissolution of the Board of Peace pursuant to Chapter X. A Member State whose membership terminates shall also cease to be a Party to the Charter, but such State may be invited again to become a Member State, in accordance with Article 2.1.

Article 2.4: Withdrawal

Any Member State may withdraw from the Board of Peace with immediate effect by providing written notice to the Chairman.

CHAPTER III-GOVERNANCE

Article 3.1: The Board of Peace

(a) The Board of Peace consists of its Member States.

(b) The Board of Peace shall vote on all proposals on its agenda, including with respect to the annual budgets, the establishment of subsidiary entities, the appointment of senior executive officers, and major policy determinations, such as the approval of international agreements and the pursuit of new peace-building initiatives.

(c) The Board of Peace shall convene voting meetings at least annually and at such additional times and locations as the Chairman deems appropriate. The agenda at such meetings shall be set by the Executive Board, subject to notice and comment by Member States and approval by the Chairman.

(d) Each Member State shall have one vote on the Board of Peace.

(e) Decisions shall be made by a majority of the Member States present and voting, subject to the approval of the Chairman, who may also cast a vote in his capacity as Chairman in the event of a tie.

(f) The Board of Peace shall also hold regular non-voting meetings with its Executive Board at which Member States may submit recommendations and guidance with respect to the Executive Board’s activities, and at which the Executive Board shall report to the Board of Peace on the Executive Board’s operations and decisions. Such meetings shall be convened on at least a quarterly basis, with the time and place of said meetings determined by the Chief Executive of the Executive Board.

(g) Member States may elect to be represented by an alternate high-ranking official at all meetings, subject to approval by the Chairman.

(h) The Chairman may issue invitations to relevant regional economic integration organizations to participate in the proceedings of the Board of Peace under such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate.

Article 3.2: Chairman

(a) Donald J. Trump shall serve as inaugural Chairman of the Board of Peace, and he shall separately serve as inaugural representative of the United States of America, subject only to the provisions of Chapter III.

(b) The Chairman shall have exclusive authority to create, modify, or dissolve subsidiary entities as necessary or appropriate to fulfill the Board of Peace’s mission.

Article 3.3: Succession and Replacement

The Chairman shall at all times designate a successor for the role of Chairman. Replacement of the Chairman may occur only following voluntary resignation or as a result of incapacity, as determined by a unanimous vote of the Executive Board, at which time the Chairman’s designated successor shall immediately assume the position of the Chairman and all associated duties and authorities of the Chairman.

Article 3.4: Subcommittees

The Chairman may establish subcommittees as necessary or appropriate and shall set the mandate, structure, and governance rules for each such subcommittee.

CHAPTER IV-EXECUTIVE BOARD

Article 4.1: Executive Board Composition and Representation

(a) The Executive Board shall be selected by the Chairman and consist of leaders of global stature.

(b) Members of the Executive Board shall serve two-year terms, subject to removal by the Chairman and renewable at his discretion.

(c) The Executive Board shall be led by a Chief Executive nominated by the Chairman and confirmed by a majority vote of the Executive Board.

(d) The Chief Executive shall convene the Executive Board every two weeks for the first three months following its establishment and on a monthly basis thereafter, with additional meetings convened as the Chief Executive deems appropriate.

(e) Decisions of the Executive Board shall be made by a majority of its members present and voting, including the Chief Executive. Such decisions shall go into effect immediately, subject to veto by the Chairman at any time thereafter.

(f) The Executive Board shall determine its own rules of procedure.

Article 4.2: Executive Board Mandate

The Executive Board shall:

(a) Exercise powers necessary and appropriate to implement the Board of Peace’s mission, consistent with this Charter;

(b) Report to the Board of Peace on its activities and decisions on a quarterly basis, consistent with Article 3.1(f), and at additional times as the Chairman may determine.

Article 5.1: Expenses

CHAPTER V-FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Funding for the expenses of the Board of Peace shall be through voluntary funding from Member States, other States, organizations, or other sources.

Article 5.2: Accounts

The Board of Peace may authorize the establishment of accounts as necessary to carry out its mission. The Executive Board shall authorize the institution of controls and oversight mechanisms with respect to budgets, financial accounts, and disbursements, as necessary or appropriate to ensure their integrity.

CHAPTER VI LEGAL STATUS

Article 6

(a) The Board of Peace and its subsidiary entities possess international legal personality. They shall have such legal capacity as may be necessary to the pursuit of their mission (including, but not limited to, the capacity to enter into contracts, acquire and dispose of immovable and movable property, institute legal proceedings, open bank accounts, receive and disburse private and public funds, and employ staff).

(b) The Board of Peace shall ensure the provision of such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the exercise of the functions of the Board of Peace and its subsidiary entities and personnel, to be established in agreements with the States in which the Board of Peace and its subsidiary entities operate or through such other measures as may be taken by those States consistent with their domestic legal requirements. The Board may delegate authority to negotiate and conclude such agreements or arrangements to designated officials within the Board of Peace and/or its subsidiary entities.

Article 7

CHAPTER VII-INTERPRETATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Internal disputes between and among Board of Peace Members, entities, and personnel with respect to matters related to the Board of Peace should be resolved through amicable collaboration, consistent with the organizational authorities established by the Charter, and for such purposes, the Chairman is the final authority regarding the meaning, interpretation, and application of this Charter.

CHAPTER VIII-CHARTER AMENDMENTS

Article 8

Amendments to the Charter may be proposed by the Executive Board or at least one-third of the Member States of the Board of Peace acting together. Proposed amendments shall be circulated to all Member States at least thirty (30) days before being voted on. Such amendments shall be adopted upon approval by a two-thirds majority of the Board of Peace and confirmation by the Chairman. Amendments to Chapters II, III, IV, V, VIII, and X require unanimous approval of the Board of Peace and confirmation by the Chairman. Upon satisfaction of the relevant requirements, amendments shall enter into force on such date as specified in the amendment resolution or immediately if no date is specified.

Article 9

CHAPTER IX-RESOLUTIONS OR OTHER DIRECTIVES

The Chairman, acting on behalf of the Board of Peace, is authorized to adopt resolutions or other directives, consistent with this Charter, to implement the Board of Peace’s mission.

CHAPTER X-DURATION, DISSOLUTION AND TRANSITION

Article 10.1: Duration

The Board of Peace continues until dissolved in accordance with this Chapter, at which time this Charter will also terminate.

Article 10.2: Conditions for Dissolution

The Board of Peace shall dissolve at such time as the Chairman considers necessary or appropriate, or at the end of every odd-numbered calendar year, unless renewed by the Chairman no later than November 21 of such odd-numbered calendar year. The Executive Board shall provide for the rules and procedures with respect to the settling of all assets, liabilities, and obligations upon dissolution.

CHAPTER XI-ENTRY INTO FORCE

Article 11.1: Entry into Force and Provisional Application

(a) This Charter shall enter into force upon expression of consent to be bound by three States. (b) States required to ratify, accept, or approve this Charter through domestic procedures agree to provisionally apply the terms of this Charter, unless such States have informed the Chairman at the time of their signature that they are unable to do so. Such States that do not provisionally apply this Charter may participate as Non-Voting Members in Board of Peace proceedings pending ratification, acceptance, or approval of the Charter consistent with their domestic legal requirements, subject to approval by the Chairman.

Article 11.2: Depositary

The original text of this Charter, and any amendment thereto shall be deposited with the United States of America, which is hereby designated as the Depositary of this Charter. The Depositary shall promptly provide a certified copy of the original text of this Charter, and any amendment or additional protocols thereto, to all signatories to this Charter.

CHAPTER XII RESERVATIONS

Article 12

No reservations may be made to this Charter.

CHAPTER XIII-GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 13.1: Official Language

The official language of the Board of Peace shall be English

Article 13.2: Headquarters

The Board of Peace and its subsidiary entities may, in accordance with the Charter, establish a headquarters and field offices. The Board of Peace will negotiate a headquarters agreement and agreements governing field offices with the host State or States, as necessary.

Article 13.3: Seal

The Board of Peace will have an official seal, which shall be approved by the Chairman.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorized, have signed this Charter.

* my yellow bolding used in this post

[See https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-charter-of-trumps-board-of-peace/]

Note: There is no mention of the Gaza Strip or the Palestinian people in this Charter, nor mention of the recently announced National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) or how this Palestinian body would interact with the Chair, Executive or Membership of the Board of Peace.

The wording of this Charter appears to suggest that the Board is to be funded by Ordinary Members. While at least five of those current representatives for ordinary member countries listed at the end of the charter document as of 22 January 2026 may not be guaranteed entry the United States of America, as their named countries can also be found on the full list of nations whose citizens are banned or partially restricted from entry into the USA or its territories.