Peace cannot be engineered on the basis of coercion. It requires justice, and justice is precisely what has been denied to Palestinians for generations – Rashid Khalidi
In a region where peace has been promised and broken more times than history can count, optimism is a luxury few can afford. The latest proposal put forward by former US President Donald Trump—an ambitious plan that purports to bring an end to the Gaza war—has generated intense global interest. But a sober reading of the fine print reveals a document riddled with omissions, asymmetries, and political impossibilities.
There are five major reasons why this plan, however grand its packaging, is unlikely to succeed.
Trust Is Almost Non-Existent
There is zero trust between Israel and Hamas at this moment, and nothing in the plan meaningfully addresses that fundamental deficit. The proposal relies heavily on both sides acting in good faith—yet the last ceasefire collapsed in barely two months, after Netanyahu backed out and accused Hamas of failing to release hostages as promised.
Given this history, what stops either side from again accusing the other of violating vague, unmonitored conditions? The ambiguity built into the agreement virtually guarantees competing interpretations. Any peace process that rests on trust must first create trust. This plan simply assumes it existed.
An Asymmetrical Deal With Predictable Consequences
The second and perhaps most fatal flaw is the plan’s unmistakable asymmetry. Hamas is required to give up its remaining hostages and surrender all its weapons simultaneously—effectively leaving it defenceless before Israel. This is not a peace plan; it is a demand for capitulation.
Hamas, already distrustful of Netanyahu, will naturally fear that once disarmed, Israel could attack without fear of harming Israeli captives. Moreover, Hamas was excluded from negotiating the deal altogether and is now presented with an ultimatum: accept the terms or face annihilation.
Israel, meanwhile, is asked to make several supposedly significant concessions—yet these are politically implausible. The notion that the Palestinian Authority (PA) will return to govern Gaza flies in the face of Netanyahu’s repeated public declarations rejecting any PA role. Equally unrealistic is the demand that Israel accept “a credible pathway” to Palestinian statehood, something Netanyahu defied even in his most recent UN General Assembly speech. The political calculus is obvious: Hamas gives up everything tangible; Israel gives up promises it never intended to keep.
A Plan Without Infrastructure, Detail, or Feasibility
The plan’s implementation architecture is startlingly vague. Nowhere is this more evident than in the proposed International Stabilisation Force—a body expected to enter Gaza once Israel withdraws. But who will staff it? What rules will govern it? No country, especially no Arab state, has volunteered. Given the dangers, why would they?
Similarly, the plan lacks any timeline or blueprint for the promised reforms of the Palestinian Authority. Presumably these reforms would involve elections—a near-impossible task in the current climate, especially for Gaza’s population. Without clarity, the promise of PA reform is rhetorical fluff rather than policy.
Even more opaque is the “civil authority” that will direct Gaza’s reconstruction. That Trump would chair a “Board of Peace” and Tony Blair would play an undefined role raises questions rather than answers. Why would Palestinians trust a board led by two figures widely viewed across the region as partisan? Why would Israel or Hamas grant them legitimacy?
In a region where governance is already fragmented and contested, a plan without operational clarity is not a plan at all.
The West Bank—The Elephant Deliberately Left Out
No peace in Gaza can hold if the West Bank continues to burn. Yet Trump’s plan barely mentions it, as though the Israeli-Palestinian conflict unfolds in isolated compartments. This is a strategic mistake.
The West Bank is experiencing unprecedented volatility. Illegal land grabs, settler violence, and new settlement approvals—such as the recently sanctioned project that would split the territory in two—have made the prospect of a contiguous Palestinian state nearly impossible.
Any lasting settlement must include the West Bank as a central pillar, not an afterthought. Ignoring it is not just negligent—it is dishonest.
Netanyahu’s Far-Right Cabinet Will Sabotage Any Compromise
Even if the proposal’s flaws were fixed, the most immovable obstacle remains Netanyahu’s own coalition. Ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir have openly stated they reject anything short of the complete elimination of Hamas.
But Hamas, even if disarmed, will not be ideologically extinguished; nor will every fighter disappear. The far-right knows this. For them, any compromise is betrayal—and any step toward Palestinian statehood is treason.
It is hard to imagine Netanyahu risking his government’s collapse to implement a plan drafted in Washington. His political instincts have always favoured delay, resistance, and strategic ambiguity. He will not change now.
So, Does the Plan Stand a Chance?
If Hamas accepts the plan, the world will learn the answers to many open questions. But even then, success would depend almost entirely on external pressure—Washington squeezing Israel and Qatar and Egypt squeezing Hamas. History shows both sets of pressures weaken long before peace is achieved.
Netanyahu wants multiple “off-ramps,” and Trump has already reassured him that if Hamas refuses compliance, Israel will have full US backing to “finish the job.” This assurance may temporarily placate Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, but it does not create a sustainable peace framework.
In his recent UN speech, Netanyahu defiantly vowed that Israel would never allow the world to “shove a terror state down our throats.” Nothing in the plan suggests he has softened. In fact, it indicates the opposite.
The core problem is simple: a peace plan cannot succeed when the actors essential to its implementation reject its premises. Trump’s proposal, far from reshaping the conflict, seems destined to join the long graveyard of failed Middle Eastern peace initiatives—bold in presentation, hollow in design, and doomed by political reality.
In solidarity; Ranjan Solomon, Editor
Palestine Updates
************************
Biblical Archaeology and the Judeo-Christian legends / The Deconstruction of the Walls of Jericho
The Truth About Trump’s ‘Peace Plan’ for Gaza: permanent slow motion genocide
Chris Hedges and Rashid Khalidi: Inside America’s Academic Gulags
Whitewashing Gas Exploration in Post-Genocide Gaza
The Demise of the Two-State Solution: The Assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte
Peter Beinart: ‘What Israel Is Doing in the Name of the Jewish People Is a Desecration’
Nation-states as national homes; and Sir Edwin Montagu’s views on Zionism (1917)
The west’s complete contempt for the lives of Palestinians will not be forgotten
Seth Anziska on Dominant Orthodoxies
In video from Gaza, former CEO of Pegasus spyware announces millions for new venture
After the truth-shower 