Eurasia Press & News
With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side, US President Donald Trump unveiled a sweeping 20-point peace plan for the Gaza Strip on Monday – billed as a bold attempt to end the conflict and reshape the enclave’s political future.
The plan sets out a phased ceasefire, the creation of a governing body for Gaza, and a US-chaired “peace board” to oversee the transition, with the Trump administration in sole charge.
“If we get this done, it will be a great day for Israel and for the Middle East,” Trump declared. “It will be the first chance for real peace in the Middle East. But we have to get it done first.”
The proposal reflects close coordination between Washington and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but also includes last-minute Israeli demands that reportedly angered several Arab officials involved in the talks.
Attention now turns to its political and administrative implications – namely, how governance, security, and reconstruction would be structured, and who would bear the burden of implementation.
Palestinians remain sidelined
As Trump promotes his vision of regional and global consensus, Palestinians remain voiceless in the process. “The Arab world wants peace, Israel wants peace, and Bibi wants peace,” he said, offering no space for Palestinian agency.
Former Egyptian ambassador to Spain and counsellor in Washington, Ayman Zaineldine, described the plan as an attempt to relieve growing pressure on Israel and the US.
“The conflict in Gaza has cost Israel morally and financially to the point where ending the war is necessary,” he told The New Arab. “This vision will be implemented while preserving Israel’s core objectives.”
Netanyahu, he added, was only endorsing the points that aligned with his own agenda.
Zaineldine outlined two possible scenarios: regional acceptance of the plan, leaving Hamas isolated, or a resumption of military operations that would upend the goals of regional and international actors.
Political analyst Dr Mohamad Hamas Elmasry says that Trump’s proposal favours Israel’s demands while presenting itself as pragmatic.
“There’s no mass expulsion plan laid out. In fact, it even says Palestinians who leave during reconstruction will be allowed to return. At least in the draft I’ve seen, there is no ethnic cleansing objective,” he told The New Arab.
Elmasry said one option could be replacing the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) with an international body possibly monitored by the UN, while another involves Article 19, which addresses the “de-radicalisation” of the Palestinian Authority for Israeli security.
Dr Michael Hanna, US Program Director at the International Crisis Group (ICG), highlighted the role of Arab states in shaping some provisions.
“Regional states have been able to insert various points that have been important. Forced displacement – for Egypt in particular – was very important,” he told TNA. “The Palestinians didn’t have any input into this round of diplomacy.”
PLO official Abbas Zaki, meanwhile, dismissed the initiative as an effort to bury Palestinian aspirations.
“The sole purpose of this plan is to cease Israel’s war on Gaza because the Palestinian death toll has reached 250,000 civilians. The plan stresses swift implementation to deter any Arab or international support for Palestinian self-determination.”
The official death toll since Israel’s war began in October 2023 exceeds 66,000, but a Lancet study in July 2024 estimated the actual figure to be more than 186,000.
In early September, a United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry report found that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza.
A fragile path forward
Trump insisted that Israel and its Arab allies were aligned on the plan and that Hamas must accept it or face annihilation. Yet negotiations could produce new risks, rather than resolutions.
Zaineldine noted that Arab states – particularly Egypt, Jordan, and Gulf countries – would assume de facto responsibility for administering Gaza, though the US would remain the lead sponsor. This, he warned, poses major financial and logistical challenges and sidelines Palestinian political actors, including Hamas and the PLO.
Elmasry argued that genuine reform is needed inside the Palestinian Authority. “Since Oslo, the PA has essentially been a security collaborator with the Israelis. They are deeply unpopular among Palestinians. Everyone agrees the PLO needs reform, and elections are needed. But the Israelis and Americans want even more cooperation from the PA – that’s a recipe for disaster.”
On Hamas, Hanna suggested their options were narrowing. “Hamas is not what it was two years ago, and this plan arises from Israeli military superiority. If Hamas still exists in some fashion, it’s not a fighting force that can threaten Israel. If it continues to play a role in Palestinian politics, it will be in very different ways.”
Occupation or armistice?
If the plan is deployed, Israel would make a “modest withdrawal” alongside the release of all remaining hostages. For Palestinians, this could mean either a fragile truce or deeper subjugation.
Zaineldine argued that Palestinian resistance would likely subside once Israel withdrew, creating an opportunity for an armistice.
But Hanna suggested two bleak alternatives. “The deployment of regional and international security forces to Gaza – something hard to imagine happening – or an ongoing war, Israeli occupation, and full Israeli control.”
Zaki warned that the proposal threatens to erase the Palestinian cause entirely.
“Without real retribution for the civilians martyred in Gaza, and with international condemnation of Hamas, this plan risks concluding the Palestinian struggle under the shadow of genocide.”
