Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan: Today, Tomorrow and the Day After

Image: The White House 29.9.25 / Wiki Commons

Back in January last year, my Toda Policy Brief 182 was published with the title “Israel and Gaza: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow”. On 29 September this year, President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a joint press conference to announce a peace plan for Gaza. The plan’s title could well have been “Gaza: Today, Tomorrow and the Day After”. Trump’s yearning for the Nobel Peace Prize is no secret, possibly out of Obama-envy. If the bold and audacious 20-point Gaza plan succeeds, he will surely deserve the award. For it entails the end of Hamas as a governing force in Gaza and a security threat to Israel, gives Arabs the stability they seek in the region, promises a terror-free future for Israel and keeps alive the dream of a Palestinian state. That said, however, potholes, there be a few on the pathway to Middle East peace.

First, the good news

Any viable peace plan must deliver on three core challenges: an immediate ceasefire that brings an end to the killings and a release of all Israeli hostages still in captivity, dead or alive (today); the removal of Hamas as a military, political and institutional force from Gaza and its replacement with a credible governance structure for the strip to oversee its reconstruction (the agenda for tomorrow); and appropriate provisions, backed by credible guarantees, to prevent the return of terror to Israel (the promise of the day after).

The plan calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces to an agreed line, the immediate cessation of hostilities and freeze on battle lines once all parties have agreed to the plan; the return of all hostages to Israel within 72 hours of the latter’s acceptance of the agreement; the release of 2,000 Palestinian prisoners by Israel (points 3–5).

The second part (tomorrow) is covered in points 6–16. After the exchange of hostages and prisoners, Hamas members who give up their arms and surrender will be granted amnesty and, if they wish, be given safe passage to third countries. They will play no role in Gaza’s governance. Aid deliveries into Gaza will resume and distributed without interference from any party. Gaza will be governed by a transitional, technocratic and apolitical committee of qualified Palestinians and international experts. An international high-level Peace Board will “set the framework”, “handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza”, and “create modern and efficient governance” to the “best international standards”. Trump will draw up an economic development plan. No one will be forced to leave Gaza. Israel will neither occupy nor annex Gaza. Instead, its forces will withdraw to agreed lines and on a timetable tied to Hamas’s demilitarisation. The US, Arab countries and other international partners will provide a temporary International Stabilisation Force to deploy immediately in Gaza.

The third and final element is addressed in points 1, 9, 14, 19 and 20. They envision Gaza as “a deradicalised terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbours”; a guarantee from Arab regional partners that Hamas and its factions will comply with the provisions and New Gaza will not pose a threat to its people or to neighbours; and, possibly as the most critical trigger to a direct US involvement if the agreement is violated, the new “Board of Peace” to be set up “will be headed and chaired” by Trump himself. As Gaza redevelops and the Palestinian Authority implements the necessary reforms, a “credible pathway” to realise the aspirations of the Palestinians for self-determination and statehood will emerge. The US will establish a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians “for peaceful and prosperous co-existence”.

Now, the rest of the news

There are thus a lot of moving parts and the plan will work only if everything that can go right, does go right. Usually this is an overly optimistic basis for any peace plan.

To start with, Israel gets almost all its demands and conditions met on hostage release, Hamas disarmament and its removal as a military and political power, and a security buffer zone in Gaza. Its own withdrawal will be phased on Hamas’s compliance. Hamas, not so much. Hostages have been its most powerful leverage over Israel. Mass civilian casualties and humanitarian suffering have been its most potent weapon in the campaign of global delegitimisation of Israel. The few credible opinion polls show Hamas to be the runaway choice in the West Bank and, especially, Gaza. Trump has threatened to give Israel the green light to finish the job if Hamas rejects his plan. For an ideology that welcomes martyrdom for shahids, they might choose to die on their feet rather than survive on their knees on Israeli sufferance.

Conversely, the deal might be torpedoed by the more hawkish partners in Netanyahu’s governing coalition who demand a permanent security presence in Gaza, annexation of the West Bank, no release of the wort of the Palestinian prisoners and no amnesty for the killers of 7 October. Of course, it’s possible that opposition parties that want an end to the war could step in to keep Netanyahu afloat.

Third, both Hamas and Israel might feel compelled to accept the plan in order to escape the wrath of the infamously short-tempered US president. But both have a long history of sabotaging the implementation of agreements reached, arguing endlessly over the finer details and implementation implications of the agreement’s clauses, pointing fingers at each other, and so on. The region has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Fourth, to believe that the Palestinian Authority, with a president who is into the third decade of his four-year elected term, will quickly transform into a corruption-free model of competence and effective governance is a triumph of hope over experience.

Fifth, Arab governments were brought on board with Trump’s very public rejection of Israel’s agenda to annex the West Bank. When Israel attacked targets on its soil, Qatar discovered the limits of playing all sides in hosting the Hamas leadership and a big US military base while also acting as a mediator in the Israel-Palestine conflict. This helped concentrate its mind to seal the deal. But how long will the Arab regimes be able to resist their attachment to the Palestinian cause?

Finally, Tony Blair’s presence on the Peace Board as an eminence grise is a kick in the teeth of international idealism. He is thoroughly discredited for his role in the 2003 Iraq war. Putting “Tony Blair” and “Middle East peace” alongside each other in any plan for the region has as much chance of peaceful coexistence as Hamas and a Netanyahu government in Gaza and Israel. We can only conclude that Trump lacks awareness of just how globally toxic the Blair brand is.

Related articles:

The return of the ugly American (3-minute read)

Donald Trump: Self-proclaimed peacemaker lacking fortune and expertise (3-minute read)

Donald Trump’s overwhelming force/surrender style of negotiation and governing (3-minute read) 

Ramesh Thakur, a former UN assistant secretary-general, is emeritus professor at the Australian National University and Fellow of the Australian Institute of International Affairs. He is a former Senior Research Fellow at the Toda Peace Institute and editor of The nuclear ban treaty: a transformational reframing of the global nuclear order.