Peace Trump-Style: Promise or Illusion
Peace Trump-Style: Promise or Illusion
While Donald Trump describes his new plan to end the Gaza war as one of the greatest days in the history of civilization, analyses suggest that this 20-point framework is more of an ambiguous roadmap to restart negotiations rather than a final agreement. The plan has been met with cautious approval from Israel, silence from Hamas, and skepticism from diplomats. This report was prepared by Saeed Aghanji, editor of the IranGate News Agency.
Trump’s Peace Plan for Gaza: A Grand Step with Numerous Obstacles
In his latest remarks, Donald Trump described his proposed plan to end the Gaza war as one of the greatest days in the history of civilization, claiming that this plan could bring eternal peace to the Middle East.
Although such exaggerations from the former President of the United States are not unprecedented, the official announcement of a 20-point document at the White House, coinciding with Trump’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is considered a significant step in the realm of diplomacy, even if its actual weight does not match Trump’s bombastic tone.
This proposal signifies a shift in the Trump administration’s stance regarding the future of Gaza post-war, a shift that exerts additional pressure on Netanyahu and moves Washington towards a more active position compared to its earlier stances this year.
How likely this framework is to become a reality in the coming weeks is tied to fundamental questions, including whether Netanyahu and Hamas leaders currently see ending the war as beneficial to themselves or prefer its continuation.
Hamas has yet to officially respond to this proposal, but a member of the group has expressed skepticism, stating that the proposed clauses do not meet Palestinian interests, and Hamas will not accept any plan that does not guarantee Israel’s complete withdrawal from Gaza.
Alongside the American President, Netanyahu announced his acceptance of Trump’s twenty principles, despite earlier opposition from one of his far-right coalition leaders to some of the plan’s clauses. However, accepting these principles alone does not mean an end to the conflict.
Domestic opponents of the Israeli Prime Minister have warned, citing his past records, that he has a history of disrupting emerging agreements, especially if those agreements jeopardize his political position. Netanyahu has denied these accusations.
Significant obstacles are seen in this proposed framework, mostly related to the internal political dynamics of Israel and Hamas. The ambiguous nature of some clauses allows both sides to pretend to agree while acting in negotiations in a way that leads to failure, placing the blame on the other party.
This pattern has been repeated several times in recent months, and if it happens again, the Trump administration’s stance is already clear: it will stand by Israel.
On Monday, during his meeting with Netanyahu, Trump explicitly stated that if Hamas opposes the plan, the United States will fully support any necessary actions.
Although the former American President referred to this document as an agreement, we are actually facing more of a definition of a framework of principles rather than a specific and executable plan to end the war.
In many ways, this framework resembles Joe Biden’s plan in May 2024, a plan that called for a phased ceasefire and the exchange of hostages and prisoners, which took about eight months for the initial steps to be implemented between Israel and Hamas.
Trump has declared his ultimate goal as achieving comprehensive peace, but realizing this goal requires extensive work on details, from determining the lines of Israeli troop withdrawal and the list of hostages and prisoners to the mechanism of governing Gaza in the post-war period. None of these issues are included in the 20-point document, which could lead the path to an agreement to fail.
This framework is inspired by previous plans, including a joint initiative by Saudi Arabia and France in July and efforts by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is set to be part of the peace council chaired by Trump, a council that, according to the plan’s provisions, will temporarily govern Gaza.
This document was developed with the participation of Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, with consultations involving Israel, European countries, and Arab countries such as Qatar and Egypt.
According to it, a ceasefire, limited withdrawal of Israeli forces, and the release of remaining hostages by Hamas are anticipated, in exchange for which hundreds of Palestinian prisoners will be freed.
The day-to-day administration of Gaza will also be handed over to a local technocratic government operating under the supervision of the peace council based in Cairo. According to this document, remaining Hamas members who commit to peaceful coexistence and surrender their weapons will be pardoned, while others will be exiled.
An international stability force will also be formed with the participation of the United States and Arab countries, tasked with ensuring security and the complete disarmament of Palestinian armed groups.
Although the document mentions the formation of a Palestinian state, this reference is very vague. The text states that if reforms are made in the Palestinian Authority’s structure in Ramallah, a credible path for self-determination and the establishment of a Palestinian state may open.
Arabs consider this clause a step forward, especially since Trump’s previous plan, known as the Gaza Riviera, has been abandoned, a plan that included the forced relocation of two million Palestinians and turning Gaza into a tourist area under American management.
Meanwhile, the current document specifies that Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza, but no such commitment is made regarding the West Bank. This contradiction is both crucial and concerning for Arab countries. On the other hand, the document allows Israel to maintain its forces in the security environment surrounding Gaza, a clause that could be a serious point of contention.
Netanyahu has emphasized that the proposed framework is fully aligned with his war objectives: disarming Hamas, demilitarizing Gaza, and preventing the formation of a Palestinian state. However, it is still unclear to what extent the clauses regarding disarmament and the formation of a Palestinian state align with the positions of hardline factions in his coalition government and whether the Prime Minister will use this opportunity to amend some provisions.
The ultimate fate of this plan largely depends on Hamas’s reaction. Rushdi Abu Alouf, a Palestinian analyst, has described the current situation as another moment of the ‘Yes, but’ scenario, a situation where Hamas does not oppose the essence of the plan but demands clarification on certain clauses.
Such a scenario will once again confront Washington with a familiar challenge, a challenge that has previously plagued the authors of similar frameworks.
One of the notable moments in the formation of this document was Netanyahu’s formal apology to Qatar at Trump’s request. Qatar, angered by Israel’s airstrike on the residence of Hamas leaders in Doha, had made this apology a precondition for resuming its role as a mediator between Israel and Hamas.
While the Trump-Netanyahu meeting was held at the White House, Israeli airstrikes and shelling intensified in the city of Gaza.
The Israeli army has deployed its third armored division in the area, stating that the aim of this operation is to pressure Hamas, an operation that in practice has increased civilian casualties.
