When Donald Trump strode into the White House briefing room this week beside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he declared his Gaza plan “one of the greatest days in the history of civilization.” Hyperbole, of course, has long been his register. Still, the proposal he laid out—20 principles aimed at ending the war—marks a notable shift in Washington’s approach, even if it is less a peace deal than a framework for further bargaining.
The plan would freeze battle lines, secure the release of hostages, and place Gaza under an interim authority supervised by a new international “Board of Peace,” with Trump himself at the helm. For all its ambition, however, the plan remains short on detail: no defined withdrawal maps, no lists of prisoners to be freed, no blueprint for Gaza’s governance beyond a vague technocratic committee.
Netanyahu, keenly aware of both domestic politics and international pressure, signaled Israel’s acceptance of Trump’s principles. Yet his far-right allies have already voiced objections, and critics accuse him of a history of torpedoing fragile deals to protect his own political survival. Acceptance of a framework, they note, is not the same as ending a war.
Hamas’s position is even less certain. One official told the BBC that the plan does little to safeguard Palestinian interests, particularly the demand for Israel’s full withdrawal. That skepticism, if it hardens into outright rejection, would collapse the proposal before it leaves the runway.
The ambiguity built into Trump’s document could, paradoxically, allow both sides to claim agreement while maneuvering in negotiations to sink it, blaming the other for failure. It is a familiar pattern: frameworks announced with optimism, only to dissolve into recrimination. Biden’s phased cease-fire plan of 2024, which took eight months to yield even a limited truce, looms as a cautionary precedent.
Read Also: Trump’s Gaza Plan Draws Cautious Global Welcome
Trump insists this time is different. He wants an “all-in-one” peace—an end to hostilities, the return of hostages, a reimagined Gaza, and, eventually, the contours of a Palestinian state. Yet by presenting principles rather than specifics, he may have set the stage less for resolution than for another round of wearying talks.
For now, the proposal hangs in the air—significant, ambitious, and profoundly uncertain.
