DONALD Trump, the President of the United States, has once again entered the Middle East arena.
On September 29, 2025, he made a 20-point peace proposal. The plan is being called a “historic solution” for Gaza. The plan outlines a path to a truce, assistance in rebuilding and the establishment of a government. However, when viewed in the light of International Law, UN conventions and agreements, it becomes clear that sovereignty, inclusivity and legitimacy are the primary areas of concern which are being undermined in this plan.
The deal discusses immediate humanitarian aid, which is a welcome point; it also mentions a prisoner exchange, a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces and the establishment of an international body to oversee the process. It is being criticized as it failed to include all the parties to the conflict, especially by announcing it while sharing the stage with the Israeli Prime Minister, with no representation of Palestine.
The plan calls for a ceasefire and an exchange of prisoners, which means that fighting must stop right away and all Israeli hostages must be returned within 72 hours. Israel would let off more than 2,000 Palestinian inmates, including many who are serving life sentences. Palestinians are afraid that such an exchange could turn into another one-sided capitulation if there is no impartial scrutiny.
The timing for Israel’s exit is unclear and the phased disengagement of Israel is probably the most worrying part. The Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention stipulate that an occupying power must relinquish control as soon as possible. Allowing Israel to keep “buffers” of security undermines the basic idea of Palestinian statehood. The lack of clear timelines and a well-defined enforcement mechanism raises questions about the real aim of the peace deal: whether it is intended to legitimize the occupation or aims at ending it.
The International Stabilization Force (ISF), a new group of people from different countries, would manage security in Gaza. Its duties include disarming militant groups, verifying the credentials of Palestinian police and maintaining peace. However, international law stipulates that such interventions must be based on permission. If the Palestinians disagree, such a force could look like foreign occupation and it won’t be able to disarm Hamas, which means the plan will fail. Only when conducting peacekeeping operations in a manner that is legal, impartial and has a clearly defined purpose does the UN Charter permit them. This plan does not meet any of those requirements.
Trump’s plan puts Gaza under the control of a technocratic committee led by the “Board of Peace,” which Trump himself will lead and include former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is not a trusted figure in the Muslim world due to his role in Iraq War. Hamas is completely left out, but members who have given up their weapons may be given amnesty. However, excluding critical political figures, regardless of their unpopularity, contradicts the idea of an inclusive political settlement. Additionally, foreign individuals who influence the Palestinian government violate the UN Charter’s guarantee of people’s right to self-determination. History demonstrates that people rarely support governments imposed upon them.
The proposal states that it will reconstruct Gaza’s homes, schools, hospitals and infrastructure, but the plan lacks clarity on how it will ensure that Palestine’s statehood is protected. International law, as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and numerous UN resolutions, stipulates that the rights to return and statehood are not conditional but fundamental. Reconstruction that doesn’t include sovereignty could lead to dependency instead of freedom. The weaknesses outweigh the strengths. There is no set timing for Israel to leave. Palestinians don’t have complete control over their land. Hamas is left out without proposing other ways that include everyone. The ISF can be viewed as an invading force from another country. The plan fails to address the issue by excluding East Jerusalem, West Bank settlements and the rights of refugees. In sum, it sees Gaza as a separate problem instead of part of the greater fight for a Palestinian state.
This plan needs deliberation to convince Palestinians and Muslim countries to agree to it eventually. For example, Tony Blair needs to be replaced with someone who is trusted in the Arab and Muslim world, including leaders from Palestinian civil society. Set a clear timeline for Israeli troops to withdraw and have the UN Security Council ensure the same. To ensure the representation of all Palestinian groups, including those that refrain from violence. Allow refugees the right to return without any limitations. It will be necessary to ensure that ISF adheres to its intended functions by providing it with specific orders, sunset provisions and local oversight. Add the West Bank, East Jerusalem and settlements to the plan.
Trump’s 20-point plan is a rough draft, not a completed piece. It has parts that could be beneficial in the short term, but as it stands, it doesn’t meet international legal criteria for self-determination, sovereignty and equality. The proposal is likely to fail if Palestinians don’t own it. Controversial people who lack credibility can’t lead outside boards to build peace. It must be based on fairness, acceptance and respect for the Palestinian people as a sovereign nation. Peace in Gaza and the rest of the region will only be feasible when Palestinians are at the centre of things and not just spectators.
—The writer is a International Law expert with a rich experience in negotiation, mediation and Alternate Dispute Resolution.
