Hillary Clinton Endorses Trump's Board of Peace for Gaza

[Celerity]

Why would the former Democratic presidential nominee endorse one of Trump’s more grotesque ventures?

https://prospect.org/2026/06/30/hillary-clinton-trump-board-of-peace-gaza/


President Donald Trump, center, with Vice President JD Vance to his left, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to his right, arrives for a Board of Peace meeting at the U.S. Institute of Peace, February 19, 2026, in Washington. Credit: Mark Schiefelbein/AP Photo

On Saturday, The Guardian published a leaked draft memo that would give Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace” and its contractors in Gaza blanket legal immunity from any charges of wrongdoing. The draft language would also let the organization obtain public property in Gaza “free of charge.” This is only the latest example of the crass power grab in Trump’s Gaza peace plan, which U.S. representatives strong-armed the U.N. Security Council into endorsing back in November 2025.

Meanwhile, on June 18, Hillary Rodham Clinton published an absolutely bizarre op-ed piece in the Financial Times endorsing Trump’s Board of Peace and its grand plans for Gaza. The op-ed was titled “The World May Not Like Trump’s Gaza Plan—but There Is No Alternative.” Neither article has gotten much attention in U.S. media.

Clinton wrote, “There is no alternative framework waiting in the wings. No rival coalition is quietly preparing a more viable proposal. The 20-point plan is not the one many of us would have drafted, but it remains the only framework backed by sufficient leverage, political engagement and potential resources to move the parties towards implementation.” Say what? This is total malarkey. There had better be alternatives.

Trump’s Gaza design, a real estate grab masquerading as a peace plan and economic reconstruction, can move forward only in the context of total Israeli domination of Gaza and victory over Hamas and Hezbollah, goals that look less likely by the day. The Board of Peace epitomizes Trump’s corrupt conflation of his family financial interests with U.S. foreign policy.

snip




https://www.ft.com/content/2472e584-758b-4a3f-83d1-9fba042a9312

https://archive.ph/zuLUs

[usonian]

1. The plan is another "Perpetual Money and Real Estate Machine" for those "Epstein Class" scoundrels.

Lest we forget:

It's just a club to rape an entire nation.

"Well, it's the best we've got" was applied to Mussolini and Hitler.

It gets my un-endorsement.

[orleans]

2. i don't get it. why the hell is she inserting herself into this? did she HAVE to write something for the

financial times and get it published? no.
so why is she bringing this up--and endorsing trump's plan?

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. The Prospect article suggests she's doing it as a favour to Tony Blair

in the hope he'll do something for her in return (his "foundation" has a lot of money coming in from dubious sources, and it can set up endless boards, institutes, and other places where a famous person can get a cushy job for spouting neoliberal platitudes).

[Nanjeanne]

22. Good grief Tony Blair favor?

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. It's a measure of the awfulness of the "Board of Peace" that Blair may be the least corrupt and RW person on it

It's full of people who are the last ones you'd want to see in charge of Gaza.

[edhopper]

3. This is

shocking and depressing.

[Celerity]

4. depressing indeed, but not so shocking, at least for me

[oasis]

5. Please wake me, I gotta be dreaming.

[Inkey]

6. So he bumbled into a

Least toxic agreement.
Hoo Haw for him.

Idiot

[W_HAMILTON]

7. It doesn't look like an endorsement as much as it does another hard-to-accept lesson in reality for some.

It seems like many of the same people on the left that thought Trump was just fine when letting him get elected over Hillary/Kamala because they wanted to """teach Democrats a lesson""" are now upset when Hillary points out that there are no other viable alternatives at the moment.

Or is letting the war in Gaza wage on for several more years while they wait for a Democrat to fly in and save the day their grand plan? Because we could have cut to the chase and elected one in the first place and spared our country and the world more MAGA bullshit.

[Cirsium]

8. Yes, of course

It's a hard-to-accept lesson in reality.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Your words all appear in grammatical order, but they make no sense.

There is no connection between 'Trump was just fine when letting him get elected over Hillary/Kamala because they wanted to ""teach Democrats a lesson""', and thinking that Trump's Gaza scam is not the only viable alternative.

Thinking that Trump's Gaza scam is a scam is, for instance, a position held by most of the world - the governments of the EU, UK and many more, for instance. Thinking that losing an election to Trump would "teach Democrats a lesson" is an idiotic position held by a tiny minority of Americans who see elections as performative rather than a choice for the future of the country.

You are equating about 5% of US voters to about 5 billion people worldwide. And, you know, DUers are in the 5 billion, but not the 5%.

[W_HAMILTON]

29. But they are a tiny minority of Americans that swung the election to Trump.

And that set us down this course in the first place.

It should be noted that the organization responsible for this article is one of those that frequently attack Democrats from the left.

Finally, it doesn't matter what the entire world wants. Sadly, it's left up to Trump and Netanyahu at this point, with Netanyahu seemingly willing to veto Trump if it takes that.

It's almost like Israel is its own sovereign nation and can do as they want, unless the world is willing to step in and stop them. And the world isn't ready to do that and Trump certainly won't be, not as long as he had a significant financial interest in the outcome.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. It seems a bit of an obsession to take a Hillary Clinton op-ed in the Financial Times

as a rebuke to a few American losers who are fairly anti-capitalist and will not be reading it. No, the world is not about what you blame the 2024 US presidential election loss on.

Yes, it does matter what the world wants. If you think the fate of Gaza is "up to Trump and Netanyahu", then you are capitulating to them, like certain law firms and universities capitulated to Trump - "oh well, he's powerful, I want a quiet life, let him do what he wants, I'll use this as a way to blame some people I don't like and who were actually pretty powerless themselves".

The American Prospect was full behind Kamala. It had, for instance, an explicit warning that the US needed to support her, and that not voting for her would not have fixed anything about Gaza:

With polls showing that Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are running even in nearly every swing state, this election will turn on the decisions of very small subsets of voters. One of those subsets surely isn’t contemplating voting for Trump, but may end up electing him anyway.

I refer to those voters so understandably appalled by Israel’s war on Gaza and the toll it’s taken in innocent lives that they may not vote, or vote for Jill Stein, as a way of protesting the Biden administration’s continued provision of arms for Netanyahu’s war, and Harris’s refusal to cleanly break with that policy.

It’s by no means clear how not voting for Harris will stop Israel’s destruction of Gaza and the attendant slaughter of innocent lives. It is perfectly clear, however, that it will imperil millions of innocent lives right here in the USA should it lead to a Trump victory.

https://prospect.org/2024/10/31/2024-10-31-refusing-vote-for-harris-mass-immigrant-deportations/

[SunSeeker]

30. The words make sense. The same refusal to accept reality that gave us Trump is about to leave Gaza to his whims.

What “viable alternative” does the world have?

The “Board of Peace” is all there is to address the reconstruction of Gaza. No other country is stepping forward with an alternative framework, nor could it, since Netanyahu and Trump would refuse to be involved.

As Hillary says in that piece, “The choice for governments is not whether this process is ideal. It is whether they are prepared to help shape an imperfect framework from within or stand aside while more destructive actors shape what comes next.”

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. Don't capitulate to Trump.

Anyone would be a better leader of reconstruction in Gaza that Trump. Hillary herself. Mitt Romney. Gordon Brown. Bono. No Board of Peace at all would be better than one led by Trump. Cooperating with the destructive actors is a bad choice.

[yardwork]

46. Ok, how do we achieve that?

Reading Clinton's op-ed it sounds like she'd fully agree with you that almost anyone would be a better leader for this than Trump and his cadre. No disagreement from me or any DUers either, I expect.

But how? Trump is the president. The Republicans control Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Netanyahu is out of control. How do we put someone else in charge of fixing this?

Clinton says in this op-ed that the world has two choices: let the death and suffering continue, or move forward with this very flawed plan.

What alternative do you suggest?

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. I disagree that cooperating with the Board of Peace, led for life by Trump, is the only alternative.

Boycott Israel while it's led by Netanyahu. Support Israeli politicians who advocate a proper peace, which includes withdrawing settlers from the West Bank.

Cooperating with known criminals - Trump and Netanyahu - is not the only alternative to them killing more people.

[yardwork]

48. Who is in power now who can boycott Israel?

Who is in power now who will support Israeli politicians who advocate a proper peace?

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. You do the boycott yourself. You look for decent Israeli politicians yourself

I sincerely hope you are not living your life in the US with the attitude of "Trump is now in power, we should support him until the next president is elected". And Hillary needs to reverse course. She's advocating collaboration with criminals.

[yardwork]

52. My tiny little boycott of a few Israeli products is nothing.

You can say that Americans "should" boycott Israel but I don't think many people do what others think they "should" do.

I have zero power over Israeli politicians. I'm fighting tooth and nail to try to get some Democrats elected to the House and Senate.

I think this discussion is a clear demonstration of two different ways of thinking about crises. I assume that, like me, you want to see suffering in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Israel, and everywhere else in the ME end.

I think you and I have very different thoughts about how to achieve that and which politicians to elect toward achieving that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. Obviously we agree we don't elect politicians who support Trump

and I don't think we should listen to ones who tell us to work with Trump, even if they're no longer running for election (and Democrats like Fetterman should be primaried, if they dare to run again after collaborating with him). That goes for US domestic policy and foreign policy too.

[David__77]

9. Disgusting.

Politics CAN be about changing things and not just consolidating the way things are.

This is endorsement dressed up as “realism”.

Sometimes no, people (even including the elites to whom this is addressed) will actually not eat the shit sandwich.

I don’t think this is so much motivated by concern about the status quo or general human suffering as the possibility that there will indeed could be a shift in conditions that some quarters would find unfavorable to what they consider to be Israel-US interests.

[harumph]

42. Your 4th paragraph. I agree.

That is what it smells like.

[malaise]

10. My response would get me banned

I pass

[Emile]

16. +1 There are things I would like to say too.

[Bettie]

27. That's where I am too

I wish I was surprised. I really do.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

31. Mine too!!

[PatSeg]

51. Same here

Second time in the past few weeks.

[malaise]

53. Meh!

nly second.

[Whip-poor-will]

11. Right white supremacists

Hasn't the Middle East suffered enough of white men solutions to their situation that the white supremacists created ?

[Ponietz]

12. I think of the 22 Democratic Senators who voted to confirm John Roberts and just cry

Or that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, and Diane Feinstein (among others) voted FOR the Iraq war. The more things change…

Max Baucus
Evan Bayh
Joe Biden
John Breaux
Maria Cantwell
Jean Carnahan
Tom Carper
Max Cleland
Hillary Clinton
Tom Daschle
Chris Dodd
Byron Dorgan
John Edwards
Dianne Feinstein
Tom Harkin
Fritz Hollings
Tim Johnson
John Kerry
Herb Kohl
Mary Landrieu
Joe Lieberman
Blanche Lincoln
Zell Miller
Bill Nelson
Ben Nelson
Harry Reid
Jay Rockefeller
Chuck Schumer
Robert Torricelli

Wikipedia

[Emile]

17. What a revealing list.

[Celerity]

19. Here are the 22 Dems who voted to confirm Roberts:

Carper (DE)
Wyden (OR)
Murray (WA)

are the only Dem Yes votes who still are in the US Senate.

Here are all 22 Dem Yes votes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/politics/politicsspecial1/senate-roll-call-on-roberts-nomination.html

Arkansas Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes

Colorado Salazar (D) Yes

Connecticut=Dodd (D) Yes; Lieberman (D) Yes

Delaware Carper (D) Yes

Florida Nelson (D) Yes

Louisiana Landrieu (D) Yes

Michigan Levin (D) Yes

Montana Baucus (D) Yes

Nebraska Nelson (D) Yes

New Mexico Bingaman (D) Yes

North Dakota Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Yes

Oregon Wyden (D) Yes

South Dakota Johnson (D) Yes

Vermont Leahy (D) Yes

Washington Murray (D) Yes

West Virginia Byrd (D) Yes; Rockefeller (D) Yes

Wisconsin Feingold (D) Yes; Kohl (D) Yes

[Ponietz]

44. Bingaman greatly disappointed on this vote -- he focused his career on energy and natural resources and, get this:

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!
SMDH

[malaise]

20. Clarence Thomas was nominated by GHW Bush

35 years ago today. 11 Democratic Party Senators made that 52-48 appointment possible.

[mountain grammy]

23. Obama was a no

As was Bernie Sanders. It was my first real look at the Senator from Illinois and I thought, I like this man! He should run for President.

[no_hypocrisy]

14. When did HRC turn into Neville Chamberlin?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

33. Seriously.

[ColoringFool]

18. Are we allowed to criticize DEMOCRAT HRC? Just wondering.....

I wonder if she will come to "regret" and "apologize for" this latest acquiescence to a Republican President with ulterior motives.

See:
Clinton’s Iraq War Vote Still Appalls - Progressive.org https://share.google/LN8BJKv3kAHpvn2uz

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

34. Will never forget it... or forgive it.

[tman]

21. Some people are really intelligent while seemingly lacking any wisdom.

[La Coliniere]

24. Extremely disappointing.

But can’t say I’m shocked.

[flvegan]

25. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. n/t

[GJGCA]

26. As Groucho said...

I sent the club a wire stating, PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT ME AS A MEMBER.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/43244.Groucho_Marx

Politics, strange bedfellows, all that, but huh?

[Kid Berwyn]

35. "What does Goldman think?"

Popular saying of Larry Summers.

http://www.gregpalast.com/larry-summers-goldman-sacked/

[malaise]

37. The Epstein Class

Ah well

[Kid Berwyn]

38. Same class that looted the banks in 2008.

Same class that looted the S&Ls in 1990.

Same class that, when caught, didn’t have to pay it back.

Same class that got bonuses when everyone in lesser classes were losing their homes.

That Epstein class, who then wanted to privatize Social Security and now want to put US taxpayers on the hook for crypto.

[malaise]

39. You nailed it

as always

[Quiet Em]

40. She discussed this with David Remnick recently but all people focused on was her brief Joe Biden comments

I will again post a transcript to her interview. She offers a lot of insight and knowledge about everything happening in Iran/Israel/Gaza etc.

https://singjupost.com/david-remnick-interviews-hillary-clinton-at-92ny-transcript/

A few more thoughts covered by The National with also has an interview with UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher who echoes her warning.

https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/world/hillary-clinton-backs-donald-trumps-gaza-plan-calling-it-only-realistic-path-to-reconstruction/ar-AA25ZLc2?ocid=BingNewsVerp

“Without such a plan, the crisis in Gaza will only deteriorate,” she wrote, warning that “with Hamas retaining both political and practical influence over a devastated population through armed actors, local administrative structures, aid distribution networks and access to basic goods and services.”

Ms Clinton added that another generation of children was at risk of growing up amid “rubble, fear and hopelessness”.

“There will be no security for Israel. No viable path to Palestinian self-determination,” she said.

Ms Clinton acknowledged that many governments remain wary of the Board of Peace initiative and the Trump administration's Gaza plan, citing concerns over Palestinian governance, political sequencing and reliance on a US-led framework at a time of declining confidence in American leadership.

“Many are understandably sceptical of an approach so closely associated with Donald Trump,” she wrote. “I understand that scepticism and share some of it. Yet if even I, an implacable opponent of President Trump, can accept that this is the best option in a terrible situation, then surely others can, too?”

She urged Europe, regional powers and the broader international community to engage with the plan despite its shortcomings, stating that “disengagement will not produce a more acceptable alternative” and warning that continued inaction would only deepen the crisis in Gaza.

[oasis]

41. Thanks for this information. It saved my respect

for Hillary’s political insight.

[Quiet Em]

43. You are very welcome

[yardwork]

45. I just read the entire statement and it isn't an endorsement.

Over and over in this op-ed Clinton states that she disagrees with most of the plan but sees absolutely no alternative at this point.

She urges the world to do something to stop the suffering and death, rather than waiting for a better plan (which is very unlikely to emerge anytime soon with Trump in the White House.)

Describing this as an endorsement makes it sound like she thinks it's a good plan. She says over and over that she does not.

I think that this misunderstanding of Clinton's message is similar to the misunderstandings she accrued during her runs for the presidency. Clinton focuses on what is possible to do now in these constrained moments. She doesn't make big promises. She doesn't throw lofty ideals down on the table and declaim her eternal constancy to those ideals alone.

Clinton is unwilling to make promises she isn't certain she can keep. She is unwilling to allow deaths and suffering to continue if there is any possible way forward, even if it is a very flawed way.

Clinton sees a humanitarian disaster in the Middle East and looks for the only possible way to stop the killings soon. Even though that plan is greatly flawed, she thinks it's the only way forward.

Representing this op-ed as an endorsement is a misrepresentation and I believe a fundamental misunderstanding of who Hillary Clinton is. She is not a natural politician. She doesn't tell people what they want to hear. Her archetype is that of the elder mother who is telling the family what they need to do in order to survive, even though they and she hate having to do it.

Jmo

[QueerDuck]

50. As usual. She's right. At this point, our choices are limited and something needs to be done.

[yardwork]

54. Thanks for summing it up succinctly.

Hillary Clinton is right about a lot of things that people don't want to hear. That's why she wasn't elected to the White House.