Columns

When former U.S. President Donald Trump announced his new 20 point Gaza Proposal last week, he was not only inserting himself back into the world’s most intractable conflict but also reshaping the conversation on how the war between Israel and Hamas might end. His plan, which is limited in detail, sets out a path for hostages to be released, Israeli troops to withdraw, Hamas to demilitarize, and Gaza to be rebuilt under international oversight.

For Trump, the proposal is being marketed as a breakthrough, but in reality it is more of a unilateral announcement than the outcome of months of painstaking negotiations. Strictly speaking it is not a Peace Agreement but a unilateral announcement by the United States President with a “take it or leave it “ultimatum to Hamas ( but not to Israel).

Conflict Resolution practitioners have always stressed the need for parties to a Peace Agreement to “own the process” which means that they have to be involved in shaping the final outcome and the conditions contained in the Agreement for it to have any chance of success. This fundamental is absent in Trump’s Proposal although the United States’s antecedents as the guardian saint of Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s presence at the announcement of the Peace Proposal by President Trump points to the likelihood of the Israeli Prime Minister having had a hand in shaping the Trump Proposal.

What the Plan Proposes

The broad outline is simple enough. Within 72 hours of the plan’s acceptance, Hamas would release all Israeli hostages taken in the October 7 attacks. In return, Israel would begin a phased withdrawal of its forces from Gaza. The militant group would also be required to surrender its heavy weapons and allow international monitors to verify demilitarization.

On governance, Trump envisions the Palestinian Authority (PA) or a transitional technocratic body taking charge of Gaza, effectively sidelining Hamas politically as well as militarily. Reconstruction of the war-ravaged enclave would be funded largely by Arab donors, but supervised by a new “Board of Peace” chaired by the United States, with Trump himself at the center and including others such as Tony Blair of “Weapons of Mass Deception” notorierity.

Finally, the plan offers amnesty or safe passage for Hamas members willing to disarm. In return, Israel would release thousands of Palestinian prisoners, including hundreds serving life sentences.

For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump’s blueprint has clear appeal. It meets Israel’s stated war aims—destroying Hamas’s military capacity and freeing the hostages. It also offloads the heavy lifting of reconstruction onto Arab states who are effectively asked to foot the bill for Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza and the complete destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure.

For Hamas, the proposal is nothing short of existential. On paper, the plan offers prisoner releases, amnesty, and massive humanitarian aid. But the costs are steep: complete disarmament, exclusion from governance, and acceptance of a U.S.-Israeli framework that delegitimizes their resistance narrative.

At the time of writing, however, according to Sky News, Hamas has agreed to release all hostages as envisaged in Trump’s Gaza plan and immediately enter into mediated negotiations with regard to other matters in the US President’s Proposal.

Arab States and the Palestinian Authority

The regional reaction has been cautious. Egypt and Qatar, long-time mediators in Gaza conflicts, have welcomed the idea of a ceasefire but are wary of being tasked with “delivering” Hamas’s compliance. For them, failure could mean reputational damage at home and abroad.

The Palestinian Authority (PA ), based in Ramallah, stands to regain a foothold in Gaza if the plan proceeds. For Arab states, especially in the Gulf, supporting the PA in Gaza is acceptable, but only if it comes with a broader roadmap to Palestinian sovereignty.

Public opinion across the Arab world remains skeptical. While leaders may pragmatically endorse the plan for the sake of stability, ordinary citizens see it as another U.S.-led initiative that sidesteps Palestinian aspirations for independence.

Trump’s Warning

At the time of unveiling the plan, Trump issued a stark warning: if Hamas rejects the proposal, Israel would be justified in pursuing full military destruction of the group—with U.S. backing. This framing is deliberate. It allows Trump to present himself as offering Hamas a choice between peace and annihilation, while preemptively blaming them for any failure.

For Israel, this is reassuring. For Arab states, it is worrying. And for Hamas, it only reinforces the perception that the plan is less a negotiation than an ultimatum.

Although by any standards the Trump proposals are unjust and one sided and part of a coerced outcome, from a Humanitarian perspective Hamas has no alternative but to accept the United States proposal. As a result of the Israeli genocidal aggression in Gaza over 60,000 people including thousands of women and children have been killed and the rest driven to starvation.

While the larger issue of Palestinian statehood and justice for the Palestinian people is important, the immediacy of bringing relief and respite on the ground for the people of Gaza is a humanitarian imperative. If implemented, the plan could bring immediate aid and reconstruction to Gaza, easing one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.

The enormity of the human cost in Gaza requires the shortcomings of the Trump Plan to be stomached for the moment. The fact thatit was drafted without Hamas input means that the plan suffers from a legitimacy deficit.

The plan ignores the broader Palestinian question, leaving the conflict’s root causes untouched. Unlike the painstaking diplomacy of the Oslo Accords or the 2003 “Roadmap for Peace,” Trump’s Gaza plan was not the outcome of direct negotiations between the warring parties. It was drafted primarily in Washington probably with input from Israel but without any buy-in from Hamas.

Despite the flawed and unjust nature of Trump’s proposal, Hamas’ acceptance of the proposal, subject to negotiations by mediators, will bring a sigh of relief to the world as it has the potential to bring the horror experienced by the Palestinians in Gaza due to Israeli aggression to an end. That is, if Israel sticks to its obligations.

(javidyusuf@gmail.com)