The inclusion of several non-Western states, including Indonesia, in the newly formed Board of Peace on Gaza has been presented as a constructive diplomatic step toward ending violence and facilitating post-war recovery. Supporters frame the initiative as pragmatic engagement—a way to contribute to humanitarian protection and political stabilisation. Yet beyond questions of participation and goodwill lies a deeper and more troubling issue: what kind of peace is being pursued, and at what normative cost?

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is not a humanitarian emergency born of spontaneous violence. It is one of the most legally documented cases of prolonged occupation in modern history. For decades, international law has provided a clear framework for addressing this conflict—centred on self-determination, the illegality of permanent occupation, and accountability for violations of international humanitarian law. The crisis in Gaza is not a failure of norms, but a failure of their enforcement.

It is within this context that the emergence of ad hoc peace mechanisms such as the Board of Peace demands critical scrutiny.

Historically, the modern international legal order emerged from the ruins of world wars and colonial domination. Its central promise was that peace would no longer be defined merely by the absence of war, but by the presence of justice. Principles such as self-determination, territorial integrity, and legal accountability were designed precisely to prevent the normalisation of conquest and occupation.

This normative architecture was institutionalised through United Nations and its legal instruments. Despite its many political limitations, the UN system remains the primary framework through which conflicts rooted........

© Middle East Monitor