Dissecting Trump’s Gaza blueprint – Middle East Monitor

The Palestinian people have repeatedly experienced cycles of genocide, occupation, and even attempts aimed at erasure of their identity in various forms. Against this backdrop, US President Donald Trump has presented a “20-point peace plan” for Gaza, a move that appears less like a diplomatic breakthrough and more like a theatrical performance and pantomime of promises, marked by self-promotion and aspirational claims for international recognition as a global peacemaker. The plan envisions Gaza as a “deradicalized” and “terror-free zone”, aimed at turning Gaza into a developed city, as if decades of annexation could be undone with Trump’s signature. A closer look at the plan reveals that it is not a promise for peace, but rather an exercise in spectacle and branding, serving as a different method for erasing the Palestinian identity instead of its preservation.

The ceasefire proposal, presented by the US president, are unlikely to deliver the results Palestinians have long hoped for. Rather than embodying a pathway to genuine peace, it clearly reflects neo-liberalism and international imperialism, repackaged in a diplomatic form. While the plan ostensibly seeks to cease the current genocide of Palestinians by Israel, it offers little beyond a pause in violence, creating a framework of political suppression in which Palestinians would remain deprived of their fundamental rights, even if Hamas and Israel were to accept it. Diana Buttu, a legal adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team from 2000 to 2005, observes, “If you read the agreement itself, there are no guarantees provided to the Palestinians, not a single guarantee. All guarantees are provided to the Israelis.”

The opening points of the peace plan envision Gaza as “deradicalized” and “terror-free zone” accompanied by vague promises of redevelopment. As the proposal begins not with pragmatism but with the illusion of progress, as though decades of annexation and genocide could simply be erased overnight. The notion of “redevelopment” in this context works as a rhetorical device, filled with euphemism and theatrical thinking by Trump, who frames destruction as an opportunity for investment. Far from a humanitarian approach, the plan seems more business-oriented and imperialist in mindset, suggesting reconstruction by the occupiers on the very ruins that they created themselves. It resembles the logic of proposing commercial projects on the graves and coffins, and branding it as progress.

Moreover, in this generous and business-styled plan for Gaza, Trump proposes granting safe passage to both weapons and members of Hamas, an organisation that, until recently, was designated as a terrorist entity by those very actors now extending such guarantees. This absurd shift illustrates the inconsistency and performative nature of the plan: yesterday’s enemies are today’s partners, suddenly, not through a genuine peace process, but through the political script authored by Trump. Such political agreements and plans reflect less a pathway towards sustainable peace and more a display of political branding where actors are classified “terrorists” in the morning, and “transitional partners” in the evening, just for political convenience.

Furthermore, the plan stipulates that, following full compliance by both Palestine and Israel, Palestinian territory would be governed by a temporary “transitional governance” structure, an ostensibly technocratic and apolitical committee, with participation of international experts, ultimately chaired by US President Donald Trump. This proposal itself raises profound questions. It was Trump, after all, who, both militarily and financially, supported Israel, under Netanyahu’s government, and endorsed policies that facilitated one of the gravest episodes of violence in modern history. How can the very architect of Israel’s diplomatic and military shield claim the authority to oversee Palestinian governance and essential day-to-day services? Such a proposition exposes the plan less as a framework for peace and more as a mechanism of control, cloaked in the language of regional peace.

Under Trump’s proposal, Hamas will be completely excluded from any role in Palestinian governance. Instead, authority would rest only with external actors, a stark reminder that Palestinians have never had an opportunity to choose their occupiers, and now cannot choose their rulers either. Equal participation of the parties involved, both politically and socially, is the core principle of conflict resolution, yet here, Trump hands over the reins of power to Israel alone. The proposed establishment of the “International Stabilisation Force” (ISF) further exacerbates the imbalance. Far from guaranteeing security to the Palestinians, it reflects a NATO-lite presence in Gaza, where foreign soldiers will manage the checkpoints, resulting in a cycle of violence in new uniforms. The formula remains unchanged; only the method changes.

Notably, Trump’s peace plan is less about safeguarding the rights and freedom of Palestinians and more about projecting himself as the “global peacemaker”, perhaps for international recognition and achievement of the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, Trump’s peace plan exclusively offers security guarantees to Israel alone, enabling Israel to mitigate an emerging threat from the Muslim world, especially from the Iranian regime, thereby posing a great threat to regional stability. The Gaza plan reflects the long history of US imperial interventions, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Yemen, Syria, and beyond, where concocted threats were used to justify military interventions. Much like the infamous claims of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMDs) in Iraq. The same script is being followed by the US to dominate the Middle East now, to present securitisation and intervention as the only solution.

This peace plan for Gaza is less a peace plan than a blueprint for the formalisation of Israel’s illegal occupation, legitimised with the help of regional allies reliant on Washington. What is being marketed as a peace plan is nothing but a mechanism to further cement Israeli control dressed in diplomatic language. In the same vein, the recent diplomatic pressure on Qatar illustrates the same dynamic: a well-calculated strategy aimed at pressuring Doha into endorsing the plan in exchange for an “American security umbrella.” This is not the true spirit of conflict mitigation, but a transactional, business-style peacemaking mechanism deeply entrenched in geopolitical blackmail, where power is brokered under the guise of peace.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.