A new peace agenda is being sold to the world as a bold reimagining of Gaza and a pathway to stability. But beneath the glossy veneer lie harsh trade-offs, political maneuvering, and profound risks for Palestinians. What follows is an analytical take on the new Trump-Israel peace plan, its core structure, and its deeper implications for the Palestinian cause.
The architecture of the plan
The recently unveiled proposal rests on about twenty points that combine military, governance, and reconstruction prescriptions. Central to it is an immediate ceasefire, followed by the return of all hostages (both alive and deceased) within 72 hours.
Israel would gradually withdraw its forces in stages, under supervision from a newly proposed international stabilization force. The plan also demands the complete demilitarization of Gaza, Hamas must relinquish all weapons and have no role in governance. In its place, a technocratic interim authority would be installed, overseen by a “Board of Peace” in which Trump would play a leading role (joined by figures such as former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair).
Reconstruction is a core pillar: international funding, a special economic zone, and new infrastructure are promised. The plan offers a conditional nod to Palestinian self-determination, but only if institutional reforms are completed under the transitional authority.
On the Israeli side, the proposal claims Israel will not annex Gaza and would retain a perimeter security “buffer” until the territory is deemed secure. Simultaneously, Israel would release a large number of Palestinian prisoners (including life-sentence inmates), and exchange remains (15 Gazans for each Israeli remains) in tandem with hostages released.
Yet even on first glance this architecture is tilted. Hamas is excluded from any political role, Israel retains significant security dominance, and the conditional path to sovereignty is vague and contingent.
Political dynamics and stakeholder postures
More Read
Netanyahu has endorsed the plan, treating it as a vehicle for winding down the Gaza war under pressure. Several Arab and European leaders have cautiously welcomed the initiative as a potential ceasefire path. But many Palestinians and Hamas officials view the proposal with deep suspicion, seeing it as an imposition of Israeli conditions dressed in international legitimacy. As one unnamed Palestinian official put it, “What Trump has proposed is the full adoption of all Israeli conditions, which do not grant the Palestinian people … any legitimate rights”, according to Reuters. Hamas, not consulted in drafting, is today internally debating whether to accept or reject, but many within see the terms as nonstarter, according to The Guardian.
A critical locus of tension lies in who “owns” the rebuilding of Gaza. The transitional authority (backed by international actors, but effectively endorsed by Israel and Trump) is set up to steer reconstruction and governance. That can risk sidelining the Palestinian Authority and giving external powers a de facto trusteeship.
Impact on the Palestinian question: rights, agency, and statehood
First, any theory of liberation based on Palestinian self-determination is undercut. The plan offers a pathway toward statehood only if the transitional regime’s conditions are met, and control over key levers (security, borders, infrastructure) remains external. In practice, sovereignty is deferred and constrained.
Second, the exclusion of Hamas from governance deprives a major political constituency of legitimacy, provoking the risk of alienation, underground resistance, or fragmentation. Since Hamas still commands popular support in Gaza, cutting it out entirely risks further instability rather than peace.
Third, the control over reconstruction may become a tool for reshaping the population. Critics warn that offering resettlement “choice”, transferring displaced people, and marginalizing Gaza’s original inhabitants is a subtle path toward demographic engineering. Earlier versions of Trump’s proposals had included plans to relocate Palestinians to Jordan or Egypt, which Arab states rejected. Even in this version, the power to control who returns, where, and when lies with external actors, not the people of Gaza.
Fourth, the plan treats Gaza in isolation. It neglects the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, and refugee rights entirely. The most burning grievances of the Palestinian liberation struggle are unaddressed, leaving the core wounds untouched.
Finally, the proposal creates a narrative of “trusteeship over Gaza” that weakens Palestinian political agency. Under the fiction of impartial technocracy, decision making shifts from Palestinians to international actors who can be allied with Israel’s strategic interests. This is not a peace process guided by equal parties; it is a process structured by one side’s leverage.
Broader implications and risks
If imposed, the plan may become a blueprint for how external stakeholders reconfigure Palestinian life under the guise of peace. It shifts the terms of the conflict: Palestinians must now prove their credentials, submit to external control, and forfeit key claims to rights. Populations that resist or reject such constraints may be labeled spoilers.
This model also risks setting a precedent: if Gaza can be placed under conditional trusteeship, what stops expansion to other Palestinian areas? The incentive structure favors powerful states and erodes prospects for a genuinely negotiated two-state future. Were such a plan to take root, Palestinians may find themselves locked into a perpetual probation.
Finally, the plan’s success hinges entirely on Hamas, the least likely actor to surrender entirely. If Hamas rejects it, the framework risks collapse, or worse, it becomes a justification for further war and occupation, under a new international facade.
A Final Note
In sum, this “new peace plan” offers more control than reconciliation, more trusteeship than partnership. It proposes reconstruction without rights, conditional sovereignty under foreign supervision, and governance stripped of the most potent voice in Gaza. The plan may look like diplomacy, but its deeper logic resembles a managed settlement rather than a just resolution of the Palestinian conflict.
