Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan: A Mirage of Control
“This is potentially one of the greatest days of civilization,” Donald Trump declared, unveiling his 20-point Gaza peace plan alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.1 The phrase echoed through press rooms and diplomatic circles—but in Gaza, it landed with a thud. The plan, ambitious in scope and theatrical in presentation, promises peace. What it delivers, however, is a blueprint for foreign control, legal ambiguity, and political entrenchment.
Author: Sophie Schmitt
The plan’s first phase reads like a humanitarian overture: a 72-hour ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and a mass prisoner exchange. Over 1,900 Palestinians, including women and minors, would be freed. In return, Hamas must release Israeli captives—alive or dead.
But beneath this choreography lies a troubling asymmetry. As the German news outlet Bayrischer Rundfunk (BR) notes2, “Israel retains the right to resume military operations if Hamas violates any clause,” while Hamas is given no such reciprocal assurance.
Further, Gaza would be administered by a technocratic Palestinian committee, overseen by an international “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump himself. The Palestinian Authority (PA) may eventually return—but only after completing a reform program defined by external actors.
Hannah Pfeiffer, peace researcher at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg, calls this “Fremdbestimmung”—foreign determination. “The plan is not based on mutual negotiation but on imposed structures that ignore Palestinian agency” she warns.3
This model of governance—externally supervised, conditionally inclusive, and procedurally vague—raises concerns not only about legitimacy but also about long-term feasibility. With no electoral mechanism and no clear timeline for Palestinian self-administration, the plan risks institutionalizing a vacuum: a structure without sovereignty, a process without participation.
It is within this context that Netanyahu’s endorsement takes on strategic significance.
Netanyahu has embraced the plan publicly, but with strategic ambiguity. While the document claims Israel will not annex Gaza, Netanyahu insists on maintaining “full military control” over the territory.
This duality—between stated restraint and retained control—does not exist in a legal vacuum. Rather, it underscores the plan’s structural fragility. While the document outlines phases and responsibilities, it lacks the legal scaffolding to enforce them. There are no binding commitments, no dispute resolution mechanisms, and no clear designation of parties with standing.
“The plan lacks enforceable mechanisms, clear definitions of parties, and any arbitration process. It is not a treaty—it is a press release“, states leading human rights lawyer and a non-resident fellow Jonthan Kuttab at the Arab Center DC. In a region where past agreements have unraveled over procedural gaps and contested interpretations, such omissions are not merely technical—they are consequential.
Without legal clarity, the plan risks becoming another symbolic gesture—well-intentioned, but structurally inert. It may offer a framework, but it does not offer guarantees. And in the volatile landscape of Gaza, ambiguity is rarely neutral.
To its credit, the plan could deliver immediate aid as Al Jazeera reports that “[h]umanitarian aid is being delivered by air over central Gaza, as international donors continue to support relief efforts.”4 But aid is contingent on compliance, and compliance is defined by one side.
Jonathan Kuttab adds: “The plan provides for an initial pause in hostilities but lacks the mechanisms necessary to ensure its own implementation.” Trump’s Gaza proposal is not a roadmap—it’s a mirage. It offers the illusion of progress while entrenching asymmetry. It speaks of peace but enshrines control. It gestures toward Palestinian inclusion while institutionalizing their exclusion. What remains is a choreography of diplomacy without choreography of consent. The plan’s architecture is detailed, but its foundations are brittle—built on unilateral timelines, external oversight, and conditional relief.
Until diplomacy becomes dialogue—not dictation—Gaza will remain suspended between ceasefire and siege, between hope and hegemony.
Sources:
https://taz.de/Donald-Trumps-Gaza-Plan/!6112859
https://www.juedische-allgemeine.de/israel/trumps-20-punkte-plan-fuer-gaza-und-den-nahen-osten
https://www.zdfheute.de/politik/ausland/trump-netanjahu-israel-nahost-plan-100.html
https://www.zdfheute.de/politik/ausland/trump-israel-gaza-netanjahu-nahost-analyse-100.html
https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/asien/gaza-abkommen-trump-netanjahu-100.html
https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/the-trump-netanyahu-plan-for-gaza-a-legal-analysis
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/30/middleeast/trump-gaza-plan-what-comes-next-intl
- Liebermann, Oren; Salem Mostafa; Ebrahim Nadeen https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/30/middleeast/trump-gaza-plan-what-comes-next-intl
↩︎ - Verenkotte, Clemens
https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/trump-setzt-erste-phase-des-gaza-plans-durch-was-heisst-das,Uz6uf6D
↩︎ - Liebererr, Iwan
https://www.srf.ch/news/international/verhandlungen-im-gaza-krieg-friedensforscherin-der-trump-plan-beruht-auf-fremdbestimmung
↩︎ - Ibsais, Ahmad
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/5/28/gazas-aid-system-isnt-broken-its-working-exactly-as-designed
↩︎
