Two years on from 7 October 2023, Gaza lies in ruins. Israel’s genocidal military campaign has devastated the coastal enclave.
Entire neighbourhoods have been erased, and the death toll now exceeds 67,000, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. The Israeli-imposed siege, tightened to strangling extremes, has pushed Gaza into a man-made famine officially recognised by the United Nations this August.
Though Palestinian statehood remains distant, those trapped in Gaza might finally see a pause in the genocide because of a 20-point “peace” plan put forward by US President Donald J. Trump with support from a host of Arab-Islamic countries, including Iran.
Should both Israel and Hamas agree to its terms, the deal could pave the way for the release of all surviving Israeli captives in Gaza, the repatriation of the remains of those who died in captivity, and the liberation of a significant number of Palestinians imprisoned in Israel - culminating, potentially, in an end to the war.
Yet, formidable obstacles remain. Chief among them are the contentious issues of Hamas’ disarmament and the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza - both of which continue to pose significant challenges to any lasting resolution.
Despite the considerable hurdles, negotiations in Egypt on Monday concluded on a cautiously optimistic note. Trump claimed Hamas had agreed to “things that are very important”, though he offered no specifics. Egypt’s Al-Qahera News described the negotiations as “very positive.” Those who back the proposed peace plan appear to have genuine reasons to believe that an agreement may be within reach in the coming days.
The proposed “peace” plan, however, has received significant criticism for being unserious, vague, and steeped in anti-Palestinian bias while offering no viable pathway to lasting peace or justice.
Critics have argued that the plan imposes conditions that would entrench apartheid, delay Israeli withdrawal, and further marginalise Palestinian agency, rather than propose realistic terms for ending Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.
Under the terms of Trump’s plan, he would chair a so-called “Board of Peace” - a transitional governing body tasked with administering the enclave. Joining him on this board is former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is slated to play a major governing role in Gaza.
For Palestinians, who have already experienced British colonial rule, the prospect of Blair acting as a de facto viceroy evokes the plan’s unmistakably imperial overtones and suggests a vehicle through which the United States might also pursue economic interests under the guise of peace-making.
The 20 points can be divided into three main categories - ceasefire and prisoner release, Gaza’s post-war governance and reconstruction, and the longer-term political horizon. As former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy maintains, all three are dangerously underdeveloped or heavily skewed toward Tel Aviv’s interests.
There is also much to say about the cynicism of Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and others in the US and Israel who will see this “peace” plan as a means of distracting the world from growing international pressure on Israel and demands for Tel Aviv to be held accountable for its crimes of the past two years.
For all its flaws, the plan could yield some immediate humanitarian benefits. Still, it risks prolonging the decades-old conflict by entrenching injustice rather than resolving it.
“The best one can hope for from Trump’s initiative is a cessation of Israeli bombing of Gaza so Palestinians can catch their breath and find food and shelter," Dr Nabeel Khoury, the former deputy chief of mission at the US Embassy in Yemen, told The New Arab.
"The other outcome, expected if the bombing actually stops, is the exchange of hostages and prisoners."
The high-stakes gamble of disarmament
Among the plan’s most controversial elements is the demand for Hamas to disarm.
For both Israel and the United States, it is not just a priority - it is a central precondition for any lasting ceasefire or broader political agreement. Israel, the US, and some European and Arab governments frame Hamas’ disarmament as essential to Israel’s long-term security and Gaza’s post-war stability. Yet, despite broad consensus, the demand remains fraught with complexity.
However, disarmament is not simply a policy demand. It strikes at the heart of resistance, power, and survival. Hamas has already expressed a willingness, at least in principle, to disarm, on the condition that Israeli forces fully withdraw from Gaza. While this signals a potential breakthrough, disarmament is far from a straightforward process.
The political and logistical complexities are considerable: who would be entrusted with receiving Hamas’ weapons, and under what authority or guarantees? More critically, what mechanisms would be in place to ensure the protection of Gaza’s civilian population once the group lays down its arms?
In a territory where Israeli military operations have devastated infrastructure and displaced the vast majority of the enclave’s inhabitants, the question of security post-disarmament is not abstract. It is existential. Without a credible, independent force to maintain order and protect Palestinians from further Israeli aggression down the line, the prospect of disarmament risks becoming a prelude to a new phase of Israeli genocide rather than a pathway to peace.
“Hamas is under a huge amount of pressure to accept this [disarmament] demand. For them, it would be political suicide because there are no guarantees that they will survive and live to see another day,” noted Dr Nader Hashemi, director of Georgetown University's Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, in a TNA interview.
“I think it’s one of the biggest sticking points in the implementation of this plan, and I suspect that there will be no compromise on this specific point, leading to the inability of Israel and the United States - and I want to highlight those Arab and Muslim states - to see this ‘peace’ plan implemented,” he added.
Beyond Hamas: The Islamic Jihad factor
Gaza’s second-largest armed faction, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), has played a significant yet often overlooked role in this two-year war with Israel. Its influence within the enclave makes it a critical actor that must be considered in any serious assessment of whether Trump’s proposed “peace” plan has a viable path forward.
PIJ initially rejected Trump’s plan as a “recipe to blow up the region,” but later endorsed Hamas’ official response to it as representing the unified resistance factions.
PIJ must be factored into any serious effort to implement the proposed “peace” plan, not least because the group maintains armed forces inside Gaza and is believed to be holding some of the hostages, Dr Hashemi pointed out in a conversation with TNA.
Although Dr Khoury told TNA that PIJ will not disrupt the Trump plan if it actually results in an Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza, he asserted that “resistance to occupation by PIJ and others would continue, however, should Israeli troops remain in Gaza”.
If Hamas disarms and withdraws, it would relinquish its leadership of armed resistance - a vacuum PIJ is well-positioned to fill. Under such a scenario, PIJ fighters will become the “biggest beneficiaries in the Palestinian body politic from the perspective of those Palestinians who believe in armed resistance,” Dr Hashemi explained to TNA.
“That’s another factor here that I think is weighing on this decision by Hamas - their own survivability and their own appeal and support within the Palestinian body politic. They don’t want to give that up to [PIJ],” he added.
Who speaks for the Palestinians?
A number of Arab and Muslim-majority states have signalled their support - or at least tacit approval - of Trump’s proposed “peace” plan, despite Palestinians being excluded from its drafting process. In doing so, these governments have effectively positioned themselves as interlocutors for the Palestinian people, whose future is now being negotiated without their consent or involvement.
Now that the plan is on the table, the question facing each of these states is no longer one of principle, but of participation: what role, if any, are they prepared to play in bringing it to life?
This could entail pledging funds for Gaza’s reconstruction, contributing troops to a peacekeeping force, or acting as diplomatic intermediaries to help navigate the inevitable disputes and obstacles that will emerge in the plan’s implementation.
However, these dynamics cast a shadow over questions of legitimacy, agency, and accountability, especially given that the very people most profoundly impacted by the plan remain sidelined from its formulation. There is a real danger that regional powers, rather than championing justice, may become facilitators of a process that entrenches occupation and deepens inequality, undermining any hope for genuine and lasting peace.
Eight Muslim-majority nations - Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates - have publicly lauded Trump’s professed “commitment to establishing peace in the region” as he advances this controversial initiative.
Yet, Dr Hashemi, a vocal critic of their involvement, accuses these states of legitimising what he terms a “genocide extortion plan”. Rather than seeking accountability for Israel’s crimes, including genocide, these regional powers, he argues, are more interested in currying favour with Trump to further their own strategic interests.
“This ‘peace’ plan is completely devoid of any reference to international law…accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. You’d expect that the Arab and Muslim states that claim to be supportive of Palestinians suffering would raise this issue,” he stated in remarks to TNA.
Ceasefire without justice: An illusion of peace
For Palestinians in Gaza, two years of relentless bombardment, mass displacement, and engineered starvation have left the territory shattered and its people in survival mode.
The Trump “peace” plan has been shaped without their participation, and largely in service of external actors’ strategic interests, underscoring a fundamental imbalance which has long been present in negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis.
If the plan delivers a ceasefire, it may offer a brief reprieve for Gaza’s besieged population. But without accountability, self-determination, and a break from treating Gaza as a security problem, rather than a humanitarian nightmare, any gains will be fragile and fleeting.
For those advocating a just and durable peace, the challenge now is to prevent this flawed framework from becoming the foundation of a new and more sophisticated form of occupation - one dressed up in the language of reconstruction and “stability,” but built on the same underlying logic of control and exclusion.
Until Palestinians are granted not only a voice in shaping their future, but the full rights long denied to them, no plan - no matter how many points it contains and how many states across the Arab-Islamic world endorse it - will bring the justice and security so urgently needed.
“Any cessation of bombing and killing should be welcomed by all, but what follows an initial pause is in no way guaranteed - Trump’s proposal is far from being a well-worked-out plan for sustainable peace,” warned Dr Khoury.
Giorgio Cafiero is the CEO of Gulf State Analytics
Follow him on X: @GiorgioCafiero