A 20-Point Plan, But What Peace for Gaza

• Med this Week Middle East and North Africa
• whatsapp

The MED This Week newsletter provides informed insights on the most significant developments in the MENA region, bringing together unique opinions and reliable foresight on future scenarios. Today, we shed light on the Trump's 20-point peace plan for Gaza.

As regional and international actors await Hamas's response to the peace plan unveiled by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, 29 September, at the White House, doubts and concerns are mounting, both about the 20 points it contains, and, more broadly, about the proposal's overall feasibility. If accepted by all parties, the plan would provide for an immediate end to hostilities, the release of all hostages in a single tranche, the non-annexation of the Gaza Strip, and the possibility for Gazans to remain there if they wish. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt reacted immediately, issuing a joint statement in which they expressed their "confidence in the American president's ability to find a lasting solution to the conflict". Similar support came from several European countries. The ball is now in Hamas's court: Trump has given the group three to four days to accept, a deadline that is about to expire. Qatar - which on Monday received an official apology from the Israeli prime minister for the 9 September attack - has once again become the centre of mediation. The Hamas leaders based there are preparing a response, supported by Qatari, Turkish and Egyptian mediators. Yet the plan raises numerous critical issues touching on key aspects of the ongoing conflict. First, regarding the withdrawal of the IDF from Gaza, it merely stipulates a three-phase process, without defining a timetable, while leaving the possibility for the Israeli army to remain in a buffer zone open. The creation of a Palestinian state is acknowledged as an aspiration of the Palestinian people, but its legitimacy is not equally recognised and, more importantly, the plan makes no mention of preventing Israeli annexation of the West Bank, just like for the Gaza Strip. The role of the Palestinian Authority is secondary and subject to reforms for which no timeframe is given, and without any reference to future elections. Finally, it is not specified whether the mandate of the International Stabilisation Force - intended to guarantee the security of the Strip and the disarmament of Hamas - will be conferred by the United Nations, as is usually the case in post-conflict situations. Further complicating matters is a short video in which Benjamin Netanyahu, upon his return from Washington, once again denied that a Palestinian state would ever come into being, adding that no withdrawal of the IDF from the Strip is planned. What remains certain, however, is that if Hamas does not accept the proposal, the American president has given the Israeli prime minister free rein to "finish the job" in the Strip.

Experts from the ISPI network discuss on Trump's 20-point peace plan and how it has been received by the various parties involved.

A business-oriented peace plan for Trump, but one that MAGA voters may disapprove

"It is hard to say whether Donald Trump genuinely believes in the success of the 20-point peace plan or if its optimism is a smokescreen. The plan has its limits; the Palestinians have not been part of the negotiation, and the implementation rules seem grossly unbalanced, placing a large amount of power in the hands of a 'Board of Peace' whose nature and composition are unclear. On the other hand, the President has massively invested his credibility in the plan; he is the chairman of the 'Board of Peace' and has placed his name on the future economic development plan for Gaza. The Palestinian Authority has praised the US efforts, while several Arab countries have expressed their willingness to engage in the plan's finalisation and implementation. The ambition to play a 'historical role' could keep Trump engaged. Moreover, the plan has a strong business orientation, like other President's initiatives. The main problem lies on the domestic side. If MAGA voters' discontent with what they see as Trump's lack of attention to the domestic agenda should deepen, the White House could revise its priorities and leave the plan without the support it needs to be effective."

Gianluca Pastori, Senior Associate Research Fellow, ISPI; Associate Professor, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

France approves the plan for now, but already notes a lack of clarity on the future Palestinian state

"France sees the US peace plan for Gaza as a diplomatic response to the sequence of recognition of the Palestinian state on which it has been working tirelessly with Saudi Arabia since the beginning of the year. The French priority was to restore a political horizon to the Palestinian issue and to rebuild international consensus with the support of the UN. Paris, which claimed that its own plan could offer a way out for US diplomacy, which is in a very awkward position on Gaza, points out that Donald Trump has taken up many of the French proposals - but has avoided the issue of a Palestinian state. France is not mentioned in the US president's peace council project either. Given Donald Trump's enormous ability to capture media attention, Paris is content to give its approval for the time being, while waiting to see whether Washington can make concrete progress on implementation."

Dorothée Schmid, Head, Turkey/Middle East Program, Ifri

For Netanyahu and the stability of the coalition, it would be better if Hamas did not accept the plan

"US President Donald Trump's 20-point plan to end the war in Gaza and bring about broader regional partnerships between Israel and the Arab world contains both promise and risk for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On the one hand, Netanyahu seems to be interested in a deal that would allow him to claim victory over Hamas and open the door to formal diplomatic relationships with moderate Arab countries, primarily Saudi Arabia, which was on the verge of normalizing ties with Israel on the eve of the October 7, 2023, attack. In his mind, these achievements can be leveraged to bolster the chances of being reelected and staying in power. On the other hand, some of Netanyahu's coalition partners (Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir) threaten to dissolve the coalition government because they see any effort to end the war now as a sign of failure, because it will not lead to the complete eradication of Hamas, the mass-expulsion of the Palestinians, and possibly the resettlement of the Gaza Strip. Given the political cost of agreeing to the deal in its entirety, Netanyahu is probably banking on Hamas' rejection of Trump's terms. That will allow him to keep his coalition government intact while claiming that he was not the obstacle, that it was Hamas' fault, and, therefore, normalization with the Arab world can proceed uninterruptedly."

Ilai Saltzman, Associate Research Professor, University of Maryland

Excluding Palestinians and sidelining Arab partners leads to subjugation not peace

"The peace plan presented by the House White had significant changes made by Netanyahu compared to the one agreed to by Arab and Muslim leaders, which derails efforts to reach a deal. The amendments leave the timelines and conditions for full Israeli withdrawal and Palestinian governance intentionally ambiguous, ultimately granting Israel a blank check to resume its genocidal war, continue the occupation, and block Palestinian statehood. While Arab and Muslim leaders see this as an opportunity to end the suffering and genocide in Gaza and were left with no choice but to cautiously welcome the plan in their joint statement, some Arab officials suggested that the current plan needs clarifications and further negotiations, and signalled they would only support, partake in, or finance the deal if there is a clear path to Palestinian governance and statehood. This manoeuvre by Israel and the Trump administration, embarrassing and sidelining Arab and Muslim partners in the region while giving Hamas an unrealistic ultimatum, is unlikely to help the proposal succeed. Importantly, Arab leaders know that excluding Palestinians from determining their own fate and stripping them of their rights and self-determination, is a scheme that legitimizes permanent occupation and subjugation of Palestinians and is unlikely to work or receive popular support in the region."

Tamara Kharroub, Deputy Executive Director & Senior Fellow, Arab Center Washington DC

Trump's peace plan lacks essential details for the final resolution of the conflict

"Trump's Gaza peace plan raises hopes but ultimately fails to address the core underlying issues. This is a neoliberal conflict-management roadmap proposing a 'New Gaza' - deradicalized, depoliticized and redeveloped - yet fundamentally disconnected from the realities of a future Palestinian state. Rather than a mediated final settlement, it appears designed to preserve Israel's blockade of Gaza while outsourcing its administration, policing and reconstruction to international actors, technocrats and financiers. The urgent demands for an end to Israel's daily bombardment, the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, and the resumption of United Nations humanitarian aid cannot hide the fact that this plan lacks essential detail. Who will contribute to the proposed International Stabilisation Force? Who will bankroll Gaza's reconstruction? What is the timeframe? And where is the pathway toward genuine Palestinian sovereignty and future statehood?"

Craig Larkin, Professor, King's College London