In a bold move, US President Donald Trump has presented a Gaza plan to Hamas, shifting the diplomatic advantage to Israel and granting more flexibility on the ground in case the deal falls through. The White House unveiled a 20-point plan aimed at ending Israel’s prolonged offensive in Gaza, securing the release of hostages, and establishing a special economic zone under Trump’s guidance. Both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump issued warnings to Hamas, stating consequences if the plan is not accepted promptly.
Experts, such as Aaron David Miller, a seasoned advisor on Middle East affairs, acknowledge the potential of the plan but emphasize the need for further detailed development. Miller pointed out Trump’s strategic instincts but questioned his ability to navigate the implementation process effectively. The international community has expressed concerns over Israel’s military actions, with the UN highlighting a famine in parts of Gaza and allegations of genocide, which Israel denies.
In response to escalating tensions, major Western powers, including France and Britain, recently recognized a Palestinian state in condemnation of Netanyahu’s policies. Trump’s initiative aimed to pressure Hamas by engaging with key Arab and Muslim states and proposing a 21-point plan at the United Nations, later revised to 20 points in collaboration with Netanyahu and envoy Steve Witkoff.
The plan remains ambiguous on Palestinian statehood, reflecting Netanyahu’s stance, while hinting at a potential “credible pathway” for the future. Brian Katulis, a Middle East expert, described Trump’s plan as a strategic move to support Israel’s interests, deviating from the conventional two-state solution consensus. The plan’s emphasis on Israeli security and Hamas compliance underscores Trump’s willingness to provide unwavering support to Israel in the absence of an agreement.
Despite skepticism regarding Trump’s attention to detail, the plan signifies a significant intervention in the Middle East conflict. While previous attempts, such as Bill Clinton’s detailed proposal at the Camp David summit, faced challenges, the current situation demands urgent action due to heightened humanitarian crises and regional dynamics. The evolving framework reflects the changing landscape and urgency for a comprehensive resolution to the longstanding conflict.