Donald Trump’s 20-point proposal to end the Gaza war has drawn global attention for its ambition and its promise of swift relief. Yet behind the bold declarations lies a framework that is fraught with contradictions, political obstacles, and risks of failure. A closer analysis reveals why the plan, though dramatic in presentation, may prove impractical or even destabilizing.
1. Unrealistic expectations of Hamas
The proposal requires Hamas to disarm, release hostages, and accept permanent exclusion from governance in Gaza. This amounts to dismantling its identity as both a military and political force. For an organization that has built its legitimacy through armed resistance, expecting voluntary dissolution is highly unrealistic. Even if some leaders accepted exile or amnesty, a core faction would likely resist, continuing underground activity and threatening renewed violence.
2. Undermining Palestinian political agency
The plan envisions Gaza being run by a technocratic committee overseen by an international “Board of Peace,” with Trump himself as chair. To many Palestinians, this will look less like liberation and more like external imposition. Governance imposed from the outside—even if framed as temporary—risks delegitimizing local institutions and deepening the sense of political disenfranchisement. Palestinians have long sought self-rule, not trusteeship under foreign oversight.
3. Sovereignty and security dilemmas
A central feature of the plan is the deployment of an International Stabilization Force. While designed to secure borders and prevent weapons smuggling, its presence could trigger new tensions. Which countries would contribute troops? How would they operate alongside the Israel Defense Forces and Egypt? What happens if clashes erupt between locals and the foreign force? Without clear legitimacy, an external military presence may generate resistance rather than stability.
4. Fragile prisoner-hostage trade
The promise of returning Israeli hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners is intended to build goodwill, but the political risks are high. In Israel, releasing hundreds of prisoners serving life sentences is deeply controversial and could trigger domestic backlash against the government. In Gaza and the West Bank, meanwhile, limiting releases mostly to prisoners detained after October 7 may be seen as insufficient, failing to address the thousands of Palestinians held for longer periods.
5. Economic promises without foundations
Trump’s proposal highlights ambitious redevelopment goals: creating a special economic zone, rebuilding infrastructure, and attracting investment. Yet such plans require billions in funding, investor confidence, and long-term stability—all of which are currently absent. Without guarantees of sovereignty and political rights, economic development may stall or enrich only a small elite. Gaza risks becoming a showcase project with limited benefits for its people.
6. Ambiguity on Palestinian statehood
Perhaps the deepest weakness lies in the proposal’s vague “political horizon.” While it gestures toward Palestinian self-determination, it provides no binding commitments from Israel on statehood, borders, or Jerusalem. Palestinians may fear the plan will isolate Gaza, detaching it from the West Bank and eroding the dream of a unified state. For Israelis, the lack of clarity raises fears of security concessions without guaranteed peace.
7. Risk of fragmentation
The plan allows for partial implementation even if Hamas rejects it. This could create divided zones within Gaza—some under international management, others under militant control. Such fragmentation risks prolonging conflict rather than ending it, leaving civilians trapped between competing authorities. Instead of unity, Gaza could face a new chapter of division and instability.
Conclusion
Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan is striking in scope but shaky in execution. Its core demands—Hamas’s disarmament, international governance, and rapid reconstruction—face obstacles too large to overcome without deeper political transformation. By sidelining Palestinian political agency and leaving statehood unresolved, it risks being perceived as another imposed solution, echoing the failures of past initiatives. Unless the plan can address sovereignty, legitimacy, and the voices of Palestinians themselves, it is more likely to join the long history of unfulfilled blueprints than to bring lasting peace.
