Fatima Ali
ALMOST a year after the devastating war in Gaza, a cautious wave of optimism has emerged. In September 2025, US President Donald Trump announced a 20-point peace plan aimed at restraining aggression between Israel and Palestine. While some describe it as a diplomatic watershed, others see it as a mere truce in a decades-long conflict.
The framework outlines a detailed ceasefire, the release of Israeli and Palestinian prisoners, gradual Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza, and a unified reconstruction plan involving Egypt, Qatar, the US, and European donors. It also envisions the gradual disarmament of Hamas under international supervision. Reactions have been mixed: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed it as a step toward permanent peace, while the Palestinian Authority described it as a positive move in the right direction. Hamas responded cautiously, endorsing the ceasefire but condemning elements perceived to weaken Palestinian sovereignty.
The plan’s first step included a jointly observed truce, allowing humanitarian aid to pass through Rafah crossing and displaced families to return home, alongside a limited exchange of detainees. However, uncertainty persists, and deeper political issues related to governance, sovereignty, and justice remain unresolved. The plan prioritizes Israeli security and border control before addressing political issues like Palestinian statehood. Critics argue that building peace solely on security risks neglecting the conflict’s roots, including occupation, displacement, and the struggle for self-determination.
Trump’s return as a claimed intermediary has revived debates over US credibility as an unbiased mediator. Supporters cite his role in the 2020 Abraham Accords, which normalized Israel’s ties with several Arab countries. Critics point to the “Peace to Prosperity” initiative, which faced widespread criticism. The Sharm El-Sheikh Peace Summit in mid-October saw Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the US, and the EU sign the Declaration of Lasting Peace and Prosperity, pledging to rebuild Gaza and oversee a long-term ceasefire. The inclusion of Arab states signals a multilateral approach, yet enforcement and accountability mechanisms remain a concern.
Humanitarian agencies emphasize that rebuilding Gaza requires more than aid—it demands political assurance, freedom of movement, government reforms, and justice for victims. The framework does not provide a clear roadmap for Palestinian statehood, leaving the matter for further discussions, which remain vague and potentially hindering. Nevertheless, short-term relief has been delivered to civilians through the ceasefire and aid corridors.
Trump’s 20-point plan presents both an opportunity and a challenge. It seeks to replace long-standing conflicts with cautious cooperation, but the determination to achieve lasting peace, rather than a temporary truce, depends on the genuine intentions of all parties to engage in dialogue, justice, and mutual respect.
—The writer works for Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI).
