Donald Trump’s proposed framework for ending the Gaza conflict and rebuilding the war-torn territory is currently propelled by significant momentum. This backing comes not only from Trump himself but also from key Arab and Islamic nations, including Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Turkey. Even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has given his support, despite the plan referencing a potential pathway to a Palestinian state, a concept he has previously opposed.
Trump has set a tight deadline, urging Hamas to respond to the proposal within three to four days. Failure to agree means the continuation of the conflict.
Interestingly, the current proposal bears a strong resemblance to a plan previously put forward by Joe Biden over a year ago. The interim period has been marked by extensive loss of civilian life in Gaza, widespread destruction, and a growing famine, while Israeli hostages have endured prolonged captivity.
Reports suggest the Biden initiative faltered due to Netanyahu shifting goalposts, influenced by pressure from the right-wing of his cabinet. Nevertheless, the current framework represents a crucial development, signifying Trump’s direct involvement in pushing for an end to the war. Trump’s influence is such that refusing his proposals is challenging, as demonstrated by the public criticism Ukraine’s President Zelensky faced in February. However, political landscapes can shift once leaders depart the White House.
Before returning to Israel, Netanyahu shared his perspective, mentioning the concept of an independent Palestine alongside Israel – the two-state solution that countries like the UK have sought to revitalize by recognizing Palestine.
The Trump document offers a conditional nod toward Palestinian independence. It suggests that following reforms to the Palestinian Authority, conditions might become suitable for “a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood,” acknowledging this as the Palestinian people’s aspiration.
The prospect of a Palestinian state, even a distant one, proved contentious for Netanyahu. Despite his public endorsement of Trump’s plan, stating it “achieves our war aims,” his response in Hebrew to his domestic audience revealed a different stance. He emphasized, “No, absolutely not. It’s not even written in the agreement. But we did say one thing. That we would forcibly resist a Palestinian state.” He also indicated Trump’s agreement on this point.
The plan’s strength lies in its momentum, but its weakness is the typical Trumpian lack of detailed specifics. While the document outlines stages for an Israeli withdrawal and includes support from various nations, it lacks the granular details crucial for the sustainability of any war-ending agreement.
For the plan to succeed, intensive negotiations are necessary, presenting numerous opportunities for breakdown. Mainstream Israeli opposition parties have backed the proposal, while the far-right elements within Netanyahu’s coalition, who favored the earlier “Trump Riviera” plan (which controversially suggested displacing Gaza’s population), have criticized the current proposal as “dangerous” and “full of holes.”
If Hamas accepts the deal and Netanyahu seeks to appease his coalition partners, he may find ways to obstruct the negotiations, potentially blaming Hamas. The structure of Trump’s framework allows Israel considerable latitude to reject specific actions.
Ultimately, resolving a conflict spanning over a century is immensely challenging. Many international observers, including the UK, believe that any solution not leading to Palestinian independence will fail to secure lasting peace.
The statement of support from Arab and Islamic foreign ministers highlighted their belief that the plan would lead to a full Israeli withdrawal, Gaza’s reconstruction, and “a path for just peace on the basis of a two-state solution under which Gaza is fully integrated with the West Bank in a Palestinian state in accordance with international law.” This could be interpreted as a reference to the International Court of Justice’s ruling on the illegality of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.
Netanyahu appears to view the deal as a step towards achieving victory over Hamas, asserting that Palestinians have no claim to the land between the Jordan River and the sea.
The ambiguity of the plan allows for two vastly different interpretations, creating an uncertain foundation for future progress.