Donald Trump’s newly announced 20-point Gaza peace plan is being described by analysts as one of the most unusual initiatives in modern conflict diplomacy. Unlike traditional peace processes, it was drafted entirely in consultation with Israel.
There were no negotiations with Palestinians, no third-party mediation, and no recognition of Hamas, the elected authority in Gaza since 2006, as a legitimate stakeholder.
Critics argue that peace without dialogue is not peace at all. Instead, the plan reflects Washington’s strong alignment with Israel, sidelining the very people who have endured two years of bombardment, displacement, and blockade.
Built on Threats, Not Guarantees
Perhaps the most striking element is Trump’s warning that Palestinians must accept the plan—or face “tough” consequences. Far from diplomacy, this amounts to pressure politics, critics say.
The plan lacks basic guarantees: there is no commitment to Israeli troop withdrawal, no accountability mechanisms for alleged war crimes, and no provisions for justice or reparations.
Israel, meanwhile, is not required to halt its military operations or settlement expansion.
As one observer noted, “It is a ceasefire on Israel’s terms, not a roadmap to peace.”
Gaza in Ruins, Justice Absent
Since October 2023, Israeli bombardment has killed more than 66,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, including children, women, and the elderly.
Entire neighbourhoods have been erased; markets, schools, and hospitals reduced to rubble. Yet the so-called peace plan avoids even mentioning accountability. No war crimes investigations. No compensation. No justice.
This asymmetry stands in stark contrast with the U.S. approach to Afghanistan, where Washington held years of talks with the Taliban in Doha, acknowledging that peace could not be achieved without engaging the actual combatants. In Gaza, however, Hamas is excluded altogether.
Normalizing Occupation
The plan also ignores the West Bank, where Israeli settlement expansion continues, and offers Palestinians only vague references to “possible self-determination.” For Israel, however, the plan provides recognition, security guarantees, and political cover.
Analysts warn this is less about peace than about normalizing occupation under the banner of diplomacy. “It entrenches domination while silencing the oppressed,” experts said.
Palestinians Excluded from Negotiations
The most glaring weakness is the absence of Palestinian involvement. This agreement, in theory, is meant to be between two parties, Israel and Palestine. Yet no Palestinian representatives were consulted, and Hamas, the elected authority in Gaza, was entirely excluded.
Instead of being asked for input, the Palestinian side has simply been warned: accept the terms or face severe consequences. Such an approach strips the plan of legitimacy from the very beginning.
Trump’s framework is less about negotiation and more about imposition. It explicitly states that Hamas must agree, and if it refuses, conditions will become “very tough” for the people of Gaza. This reflects a coercive model of diplomacy, relying on threats rather than consensus, and risks deepening resentment rather than paving the way to reconciliation.
Decisions Made Without Gazans
The plan outlines the creation of permissible transit organizations and foreign-led administrative teams to manage movement and governance in Gaza. But these decisions have been made without involving the very citizens of Gaza whose lives will be most affected. Excluding local voices from security and administrative arrangements undermines credibility and reinforces the perception of outside control.
Ignoring the Two-State Solution and the West Bank
While the plan refers to a ceasefire and some administrative measures, it sidesteps the permanent solution endorsed by the international community — the two-state solution. Moreover, the West Bank is completely absent from the document. At the same time, Israel has openly stated its intention to expand settlements in the West Bank, with some Israeli leaders even suggesting its full incorporation into Israel. This selective framing reveals the one-sided nature of the initiative.
The peace plan lacks basic details about how it will be implemented, who will enforce it, and when. For example, what role would local Palestinians have in the proposed “First National Peace Force”? What happens after a ceasefire is achieved? What long-term political arrangement is envisioned? The absence of such clarity suggests the plan is more rhetorical than practical.
Conflicting Plans and Political Posturing
Confusion also clouds the process because multiple overlapping proposals exist. Trump presented one version to Muslim leaders in New York on September 29. A day later, he outlined another framework. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented his own draft to his cabinet. Within Israel, hardliners such as cabinet member Bezalel Smotrich (and others in the right-wing bloc) have bluntly stated that they are unwilling to accept anything less than the destruction of Hamas. This fragmentation reveals a lack of unity even among supposed partners.
No Accountability for Israeli Actions
Perhaps most glaringly, the plan provides no answer to Israel’s devastating war on Gaza. Since October 7, 2023, more than 66,000 Palestinians — the vast majority civilians — have been killed. Children, women, and the elderly have perished under relentless bombardment. Gaza has been reduced to rubble, its infrastructure destroyed, its economy shattered. Yet Trump’s plan makes no mention of accountability, no calculation of losses, and no provision for justice or reparations. The silence on these issues reinforces the perception that the plan is designed to shield Israel from responsibility while imposing conditions on Palestinians.
In sum, Trump’s Gaza peace plan is being seen by critics as a one-sided blueprint that excludes the oppressed, legitimizes the aggressor, and avoids the core issues of justice, accountability, and Palestinian statehood. By ignoring the voices of Palestinians, sidelining the two-state solution, and offering no real roadmap, it risks entrenching occupation rather than ending it.
The Way Forward
*For any genuine resolution, four principles remain essential:
*Direct negotiations with Palestinians, including Hamas.
*International guarantees for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories.
*Accountability mechanisms for mass civilian casualties and war crimes.
*Recognition of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
*Without these, Trump’s Gaza plan risks becoming yet another failed blueprint—remembered not for ending war, but for deepening injustice.
