DaysofPal – Over the coming days, Hamas is expected to carefully study former U.S. President Donald Trump’s newly unveiled 20-point plan for Gaza. The proposal, already approved by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is being presented as a roadmap for “stability” in the enclave. Yet many observers warn it could strip Palestinians of control over Gaza, cement Israeli dominance, and reframe the territory in economic rather than national terms.
At its core, the plan demands the disarmament of Hamas and the end of its presence in Gaza. In practice, critics argue, this would remove Gaza completely from Palestinian hands.
Certain provisions in the proposal will likely be welcomed by many Palestinians. It secures the release of 250 prisoners serving life sentences, along with 1,700 detainees from Gaza who have been held under harrowing conditions since October 2023. Significantly, the document explicitly mentions that “all women and children detained in that context” would be released, a rare admission that they were deliberately held as bargaining chips.
The plan also pledges the immediate entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza through neutral channels such as the UN, the Red Crescent, and other independent institutions. This language implicitly acknowledges previous Israeli restrictions on aid and sidelines the controversial U.S.- and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which has been accused of politicizing relief distribution.
The Loopholes: Vague Timelines and Israeli Leverage
Despite these promises, large sections of the agreement remain vague. It calls for the deployment of an “International Stabilization Force” (ISF) in Gaza, while Israeli troops would withdraw based on “standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarization.” However, those benchmarks are undefined, leaving significant room for Israel to delay or block implementation.
“There is no plan in the sense of something sufficiently substantive and detailed that could be implemented,” said Daniel Levy, a British-Israeli analyst and former negotiator. “That is by design. It allows Israel to blame the other side when Netanyahu decides to desist from implementing and resumes the assault.”
Annelle Sheline, a former U.S. State Department official who resigned over the Gaza war, noted the striking resemblance to the failed Oslo Accords. “There are no penalties for Israel if it fails to adhere to the terms. Therefore, Israel has no incentive to comply,” she said.
Unlike a January ceasefire deal that forced Israel to withdraw to a perimeter 900 meters outside Gaza, Trump’s plan would initially allow Israeli forces to remain inside major cities such as Rafah, Khan Younis, Jabalia, and Beit Hanoun.
Displacement: Rhetoric vs. Reality
Another striking shift is Trump’s softened tone on displacement. While earlier rhetoric spoke of “owning Gaza” and expelling Palestinians to build the “Riviera of the Middle East,” the current proposal claims that “no one will be forced to leave Gaza” and that people would be “encouraged to stay and build a better life.”
But Palestinian analysts remain deeply skeptical. Abed Abou Shhadeh, based in Jaffa, argued that the softer language simply reflects Israel’s failure to secure a third country willing to accept mass expulsion. “In case they do find a third country, they will continue pushing more Palestinians out,” he said, pointing to Israel’s longstanding “voluntary departure” program.
Qossay Hamed, an expert on Hamas, warned that living conditions in Gaza could still force people to leave: “The plan doesn’t include displacement of Gaza, but the inhuman conditions might force people to leave. The Israelis and Americans know Gaza is no longer suitable for human living.”
Perhaps the most controversial element of the plan is its vision for governance. Gaza would be administered by an international “Board of Peace,” chaired by Trump himself with Tony Blair as deputy. The board would consist of billionaires, business leaders, and handpicked “neutral” Palestinian administrators.
Levy derided the model as “a charter for a reborn Dutch East India Company rather than a 21st-century governance document.” He warned that such an approach strips Palestinians of their political identity, reducing their future to GDP and investment targets.
Abou Shhadeh echoed this, saying, “It’s as if there isn’t any national history, narrative, or livelihood. For Blair, everything is about economics. They don’t want any political entity; they want corporations.”
Sheline drew parallels to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, where the Coalition Provisional Authority and interim governments were widely rejected as puppets. “Foreign occupation will always provoke resistance,” she said. “Given ongoing occupation and no justice for decades of abuses, let alone the genocide of the past two years, it is fantasy to imagine resistance will cease in Gaza.”
Peace Without Statehood?
The plan also proposes interfaith dialogues to “change mindsets and narratives.” While it acknowledges Palestinian aspirations for statehood, it does not obligate Israel to support the creation of such a state. Netanyahu has consistently vowed to block any Palestinian sovereignty, and analysts note that Israeli society remains broadly supportive of the military campaign in Gaza.
“There has been little to no discussion of the need to ‘de-radicalize’ Israeli society, the majority of which supports mass killings and starvation policies,” Sheline observed.
Trump’s plan arrives with promises of aid, prisoner releases, and a new governance structure, but also with the hallmarks of past failed initiatives: vague timelines, unchecked Israeli power, and the absence of genuine Palestinian participation. Critics say it risks creating a corporate-style administration detached from Palestinian identity and history while enabling Israel to retain ultimate control.
Shortlink for this post: https://daysofpalestine.ps/?p=68010
