ON 29 September, in his pursuit of delivering peace in the Middle East (a hot bed of US geopolitics and intervention for the last many decades), President Trump unveiled the Gaza peace plan, apparently a jolted peace deal, sparking a heated debate over the said plan as it seems to be hemmed in by numerous challenges hindering the success of this plan, including its unbalanced nature, the vagueness of key details and a profound lack of trust between the key parties.
While Benjamin Netanyahu fervently endorsed it, some Arab States have tactically accepted it. The proposal faces heavy skepticism from Palestinians and analysts who doubt its viability and fairness. The substantial failure of the plan lies in its vague scope for fostering a two state solution. Therefore, some thoughtful deliberations are still required to make a lasting peace in the Middle East.
A new 20-point Gaza peace plan proposed by Donald Trump has faced criticism for potentially containing geopolitical expediencies that favour Israel. A different peace plan in 2020 also drew similar criticism. The peace diplomats fairly argue that bringing a lasting peace in Gaza is central to the establishment of an independent Palestinian State with its sovereign rights. They also argue that the formation of a Committee deciding the future framework of progress of the plan fundamentally seems controversial as it revives an excruciating memory of the formation of the UN’s Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), formed in 1947, tabling the just and viable resolution 181— whose future still remains in doldrums because of the Western geopolitical interests.
The Trump peace plan envisages that the transitional authorities would take control of Gaza until “such time as the Palestinian Authority (PA) has completed its reform” programme and “can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza”. Yet, it remains unclear who would certify that the PA is ready to take over Gaza or what benchmarks must be met for the PA to handle the governance of the territory. The plan calls for a transitional Palestinian “technocratic” committee and a “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump to oversee reconstruction and administration, a proposal met with Palestinian skepticism and questions about its historic implications.
Moreover, details regarding the necessary reforms for the Palestinian Authority are undefined, leaving room for Israel to unilaterally decide if conditions are met. Moreover, a profound lack of trust exists between all parties—Israel, Hamas and the Palestinians—which makes the plan’s ambiguous elements a serious liability. As both sides can interpret the vague terms to their advantage, analysts suggest the plan is susceptible to being sabotaged by one side or the other during negotiations. Arguably, the said plan has been developed without involving an input from the Palestinian camps with many Gazans calling it a “farce”. Further, analysts state the plan offers no guarantees to protect Palestinians and allows Israel to resume attacks if it decides Palestinian Authority (PA) reforms are insufficient. This approach, focusing on security and disarmament while offering only vague potential for statehood, is widely seen as favouring Israel.
According to the conceived plan, an international stabilization force is proposed, albeit a worthy idea, but its composition, timeframe and rules of engagement are unclear. The plan also includes a vaguely defined “security perimeter presence” for Israeli forces. And yet most importantly, the plan is not a detailed agreement but a framework for negotiations, requiring extensive follow-up to address complex issues like borders and prisoner releases. It is believed that like the past peace efforts by both Trump and others have faltered, suggesting this framework may face a similar fate. Therefore, the critics argue the plan continues a long-standing pattern of flawed, US-backed deals that lacks a bi-partisan approach on this issue.
Critically, Hamas is essentially being asked to give up all of the remaining Israeli hostages it holds and all of its weapons at the same time, rendering it entirely defenceless. Additionally, Hamas, with its lack of trust in Israel and Netanyahu, in particular, may fear the Israeli leader could use this as an opportunity to attack it again without worrying about harming the hostages. Furthermore, Hamas was also not invited to negotiate the terms of the agreement. Consequently, it is argued that given the asymmetry of the plan, Hamas may decide the risks of accepting it outweigh the potential benefits, despite its offer of amnesty for Hamas fighters who lay down their arms.
“The proposal says that Israel would withdraw from Gaza “based on standards, milestones and timeframes linked to demilitarization”. Again, the provision does not set a schedule for the Israeli withdrawal or clear standards for how and when it would happen. Moreover, it says that Israel would hold onto a “security perimeter” in Gaza until the territory “is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat”. But there is no word on who would ultimately decide when these conditions are met.
Though the plan calls for the establishment of mechanisms to protect the Palestinians , they cast serious doubts in this para: “While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform programme is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self- determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people’’. For Palestinians, Trump peace stipulations are closely aligned with protecting Israeli interests
For critics, the plan’s future hangs in the balance, with many questioning regarding the fair implementation of the Gaza ceasefire deal, growing reluctance from the Hamas quarters to accept the deal, entailing an ambiguous security and political feature of the Gaza Strip, the ongoing controversial deal about the Abraham Accords with the Arab States and finally reflecting a procrastinating feature of establishing an Independent Palestinian State. Yet still, geopolitical experts believe that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkeye and Iran can still play instrumental role in diplomatically reshaping Trump’s peace plan a pragmatic success to end the ferocious Gaza War.
—The writer, based in Pakistan, an independent IR & International Law analyst, also an expert in Conflict and Peace Studies (with special focus on Palestine, Kashmir), is member of European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR), including the Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law.
