Basically the best thing for Palestine is for it to be rebuilt at base cost. Whereas most of the people on the board are money people, their job and raison d'etre is money, profit. You can see the problem.
The only way to get things built at base cost is for it to be done by the state - so the engineers, designers, managers, specialist contractors, are all expert but inhouse.
Base cost is a fraction of what professional contractors and property developers cost and make because so much profit is added to cost by large contractors and property devlopers. . For example, a costed spec for a school rebuild might be 3M at base cost, yet PFI contractors would charge 30M. (This is why Private Eye kept slating PFI contracts as being an immoral waste of public money!). In some countries government funded building is done by the government at base cost - so for example, housing, hospitals, play areas. Whereas in the UK almost nothing is done at base cost and our developers earn millions. Trump is a property developer, and I am guessing that it is a similar situation in the US. And what Palestine needs now is for the rebuild to be done at base cost, not by foreign contractors who will charge a hefty profit and want ongoing interests.
With the board of peace you can see huge potential conflicts of interests.
The other key thing to be dealt with is land ownership. Should land only be held by Palestinians? Would the above money led board of peace investers accept that?
And if so, in what capacity would the board act - purely in a sort of pro bono equivalent sense? Using their skills to help the Palestinian state and donating funds, but getting nothing back?
It seems unlikely.
And the consequence would be you'd be looking at a bright shiny new Palestine owned by outsiders - including potentially by Israel in real terms, ironically - this is something which needs though, clarity and transparency. If non Palestinians owned the infrastructure, land, etc, how could we say that Palestine is being rebuilt for Palestinians with sensitivity and autonomy and sovereignty if they would essentially be controlled by money outside Palestine?
And the numbers of Palestinians who were crowded into Gaza after being displaced - after a long war - this needs thoughtful planning to enable normal people thrive - schools, hospitals, play areas, community areas - not "let's make it beaufitul and good for business" (translated as "good for investor coffers").
Thought is needed about how to get to a point where displaced Palestinians can return to where they came from - this means that quick and frank negotiations are needed about creating an equal 2 state solution - not confining Palestinians to the tiny portions of land which are Gaza and bits of the West Bank.
My concern (and the concern of many) is that the board of peace might not be the right people to do this - as I said, there could be just too many vested interests.
There are huge oil fields just off the coast of Gaza - these resources should be used for the Palestinians not "invested" in (ie controlled by) foreign groups.
I am sorry to say it, but the board of peace as it seems right now is the way to prolong the war - the acts of violence will not go away (and both Palestinians and Israelis will suffer) unless the focus is on a fair 2 state solution being agreed and autonomy and soveriegnty being given to Palestinians and enabling rebuilding to be at base cost and to meet needs of citizens - before the Riviera dreams go for profit.