Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ Takes Shape as Israel Raises Concern. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Appeal to authority

Using the prestige or status of people or institutions to imply the value or correctness of a plan or idea, without providing substantive evidence.

“Trump wrote that the effort ‘will bring together a distinguished group of nations ready to shoulder the noble responsibility of building LASTING PEACE, an Honor reserved for those prepared to lead by example, and brilliantly invest in a secure and prosperous future for generations to come.’” “‘I can say with certainty that it is the Greatest and Most Prestigious Board ever assembled at any time, any place,’ he said at the time.” These quotes are clearly attributed to Trump, but the article does not counterbalance the grandiose framing with any independent assessment or skepticism. The prominence of these claims can subtly lend them credibility through repetition and lack of challenge.

3 suggestions

Add explicit contextual framing to distance the outlet from the evaluative claims, e.g.: “In typically hyperbolic language, Trump wrote that…” or “Trump, without providing evidence, described it as…”

Include a brief note that such characterizations are promotional and not independently verified, e.g.: “These characterizations are Trump’s own and have not been independently assessed.”

Balance the appeal to prestige by adding expert or regional-actor commentary on the board’s likely effectiveness or limitations, rather than leaving Trump’s framing as the dominant evaluative description.

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged language or imagery to influence readers’ attitudes rather than relying solely on neutral description and evidence.

“…the noble responsibility of building LASTING PEACE, an Honor reserved for those prepared to lead by example, and brilliantly invest in a secure and prosperous future for generations to come.” This is highly emotive, aspirational language. While it is clearly quoted from Trump, the article reproduces it at length without contrasting it with more neutral or critical perspectives on feasibility, risks, or criticisms of the plan.

3 suggestions

Shorten the emotional quote and summarize neutrally, e.g.: “Trump described the initiative in highly aspirational terms, calling it a ‘noble responsibility’ aimed at ‘lasting peace.’”

Follow the quote with a neutral, grounding sentence, e.g.: “Analysts note that similar peace initiatives in the region have often struggled to meet such ambitions.”

Add context about the current humanitarian and political realities in Gaza to anchor the emotional rhetoric in concrete conditions and constraints.

Oversimplification

Presenting a complex situation in a way that glosses over important nuances, actors, or causal factors.

“Trump is trying to deliver on his 20-point plan for a sweeping and potentially decades-long transformation of Gaza, which has been largely destroyed over two years of war between Israel and Hamas.” “As Hamas still retains control of almost half of Gaza and refuses to disarm, the prospect of a durable and prosperous peace is uncertain.” These sentences compress a highly complex conflict into a binary ‘Israel vs Hamas’ frame and imply that Hamas’s refusal to disarm is the primary or sole reason peace is uncertain, without mentioning other factors (Israeli policies, blockade, internal Palestinian politics, regional dynamics, humanitarian crisis, etc.).

3 suggestions

Qualify the description of destruction and responsibility, e.g.: “Gaza, which has suffered extensive destruction over two years of war between Israel and Hamas, along with repeated military operations and internal conflict…”

Rephrase the peace-uncertainty sentence to acknowledge multiple factors, e.g.: “Given Hamas’s continued control of significant parts of Gaza, its refusal to disarm, ongoing Israeli security concerns, and broader regional tensions, the prospect of a durable and prosperous peace remains uncertain.”

Add one or two sentences briefly outlining other key obstacles (governance, reconstruction funding, regional rivalries) to avoid implying a single-cause explanation.

Unbalanced reporting / Selective use of sources

Giving more space or detail to one side’s framing or interests than to others, or omitting relevant critical perspectives.

The article provides detailed description of the Trump plan (20-point plan, phases, technocrat government, International Stabilization Force, composition of panels) and Israel’s specific objection to the second executive committee. However, it offers almost no perspective from Palestinians in Gaza, Palestinian political actors beyond Hamas, or independent regional analysts. Hamas is described only as a ‘militant group’ that ‘refuses to disarm’ and ‘has shown no inclination to do so,’ with no mention of its stated positions on the plan, ceasefire terms, or governance proposals. Likewise, Turkey and Qatar are described only through Israel’s view that they are ‘too close to Hamas,’ without their own stated positions on the board or their roles in prior mediation efforts.

3 suggestions

Include at least one sentence summarizing any available Palestinian Authority, Hamas, or civil-society reactions to the Board of Peace plan, or explicitly note that such reactions were not yet available at time of publication.

Add brief context on Turkey’s and Qatar’s roles (e.g., as mediators or hosts of talks) and, if available, their stated positions on participating in the executive committee, rather than only presenting Israel’s characterization of them as ‘too close to Hamas.’

Clarify that the article is based on official announcements and that broader regional or expert reactions are not covered, e.g.: “The White House and Israeli government statements did not detail how Palestinian representatives or civil society would be involved, and their reactions were not immediately available.”

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant contextual facts that would help readers fully understand the stakes, interests, or credibility of the actors involved.

The article notes that the Board of Peace will include figures such as Jared Kushner and Tony Blair, and that Nickolay Mladenov will be CEO, but provides no context on their prior roles or controversies (e.g., Kushner’s previous Middle East plan, Blair’s role in earlier peace efforts, Mladenov’s UN experience). It also does not mention that the article is about a plan proposed by a US president whose term and political context (e.g., domestic electoral considerations) might affect the plan’s durability. Similarly, the description of Gaza as “largely destroyed over two years of war between Israel and Hamas” omits mention of civilian casualties, displacement, and humanitarian conditions, which are central to understanding the scale and implications of ‘remaking Gaza.’

3 suggestions

Add one short clause of background for key figures, e.g.: “Jared Kushner, who previously led Trump’s Middle East peace initiative that was rejected by Palestinian leaders…” or “Tony Blair, who served as the Quartet’s Middle East envoy after leaving office…”

Include a brief reference to humanitarian conditions, e.g.: “The war has left tens of thousands dead or wounded and displaced a large portion of Gaza’s population, according to UN estimates.”

Clarify the political context of the Trump administration’s plan (e.g., timing within his term, domestic political backdrop) if relevant to assessing its feasibility and continuity.

Framing effect

Presenting information in a way that emphasizes certain aspects and downplays others, influencing interpretation without explicitly stating an opinion.

The repeated use of the branded term “Board of Peace” and the description of a “sweeping and potentially decades-long transformation of Gaza” adopt the initiative’s own positive framing. While the article notes Israeli objections to one committee, it does not present any framing that questions whether the board might be perceived as externally imposed, politically motivated, or lacking local legitimacy. The phrase “The US will lead from the rear, having announced that it won’t put boots on the ground in Gaza” also subtly normalizes a model of remote leadership without exploring how that might be viewed by local populations or other stakeholders.

3 suggestions

Occasionally use more neutral descriptors alongside the branded name, e.g.: “the so-called ‘Board of Peace,’ a US-led international coordination body…”

Add a sentence acknowledging that some observers may see the initiative as externally driven or top-down, even if specific critics are not quoted, e.g.: “Critics of similar initiatives have previously argued that externally designed governance structures risk lacking local legitimacy.”

Clarify that ‘lead from the rear’ is a strategic choice that may have implications, e.g.: “The US has said it will not deploy ground troops, a stance that could limit its direct influence but may also reduce local resentment of foreign military presence.”