A pivotal moment in Middle East diplomacy unfolded today at the White House, where President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel held a joint news conference. The highly anticipated event saw the unveiling of a new U.S.-backed peace proposal aimed at resolving the ongoing conflict in Gaza. Before the official proceedings began, the White House released a lengthy document outlining the plan, setting the stage for a tense but hopeful discussion.
Key Announcements from the Conference:
- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump discussed the latest U.S.-backed cease-fire plans for Gaza. President Trump expressed considerable optimism, stating, “We’re at a minimum, very, very close. And I think we’re beyond very close,” to reaching a deal.
- A central condition of the White House’s detailed plan to ‘end the Gaza conflict’ is that Hamas ‘must not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form.’
- President Trump explicitly warned that if Hamas rejects the proposed 20 points, ‘Israel would have my full backing to finish the job of destroying the threat of Hamas.’ This stark ultimatum came despite earlier statements from Hamas indicating they were not consulted on the proposal and had already publicly rejected many of its core demands.
Inside the New Peace Proposal: Details and Challenges
As the plan was being digested, some of its intricacies immediately became apparent. One notable aspect is President Trump’s softened stance on the future of Gazan residents. His proposal now ‘encourages Palestinians to stay in the Gaza Strip’ and offers them ‘the opportunity to build a better Gaza.’ This marks a significant departure from earlier ideas he floated, suggesting a mass exodus of Gazans to facilitate rebuilding – a notion widely dismissed as unfeasible by critics.
However, the plan also presents potential contradictions. It states that an end to the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza is conditional on both sides agreeing to the proposal. Yet, it simultaneously suggests that if Hamas ‘delays or rejects this proposal,’ elements of the plan ‘would nonetheless proceed in the terror-free areas handed over’ from Israel’s military to an ‘International Stabilization Force.’ This wording leaves significant room for interpretation and potential disagreement.
The proposal also treads delicately on some of the most contentious issues. The role of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), for instance, remains quite vague. While Arab nations advocate for the P.A.’s involvement as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, Israel sees it as corrupt and an impediment to peace. The plan only alludes to a role for the P.A. after it completes a ‘reform program.’ Critically, it offers no concrete pathway to Palestinian statehood, merely speculating that ‘the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood’ once the P.A. has implemented its changes. This ambiguity on a core Palestinian demand is likely to be a major sticking point.
International Context and Reactions
The announcement follows intense diplomatic activity. Earlier in the day, in a significant development, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized for Israel’s missile strike against Hamas targets in Qatar, which also tragically killed a Qatari service member. This apology came during a three-way call with President Trump and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani of Qatar, and Netanyahu pledged that such an attack would not occur again. This marks a reversal from his previous adamantly defensive stance on the strike.
Despite this diplomatic breakthrough, far-right ministers within Netanyahu’s government were quick to condemn the apology, calling it a ‘disgrace’ and reiterating their justification for the attack on Qatari soil. This highlights the deep divisions within Israel regarding its approach to the conflict.
Meanwhile, the cease-fire talks between the U.S. and Israel leading up to this point notably excluded Hamas. This raises questions about the practicality of any deal, as Hamas leaders have explicitly stated they have not seen the finalized plan and consistently reject demands to disarm or concede control of Gaza to an international force.
Broader Peace Initiatives: Beyond the White House Plan
The Trump-Netanyahu proposal is not the only initiative circulating. As global leaders gathered for the U.N. General Assembly, discussions were dominated by various concepts for ending the war and establishing postwar governance in Gaza. These proposals include:
- The American Peace Plan: As revealed by U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff, this plan suggests Hamas would return all hostages within 48 hours, with some members potentially granted amnesty or safe passage out of Gaza if they commit to peaceful coexistence. It also includes a commitment to dialogue on peaceful coexistence and a pledge from Israel to cease attacks on Qatar.
- The Blair Plan: Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has emerged as a potential figure to lead a ‘Gaza International Transitional Authority.’ This U.N.-mandated administration would include a multinational security force to stabilize the enclave and secure borders, preventing the resurgence of armed groups. The proposal also aims to address fears of permanent displacement by guaranteeing return rights for those who leave Gaza. While not explicitly mentioning Hamas, it suggests a limited role for a reformed Palestinian Authority.
- The French-Saudi Plan (New York Declaration): Supported by 142 countries, this proposal advocates for an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the deployment of a U.N.-organized international security force. It mandates Hamas be barred from governing Gaza and requires them to surrender weapons to the Palestinian Authority. Postwar Gaza would be governed by a transitional committee of technocrats under the P.A.’s umbrella, with elections to be held within a year of a cease-fire.
The Palestinian Authority’s Contested Role:
A recurring theme across many proposals is the role of the Palestinian Authority. Established in 1994 by the Oslo Accords as a temporary administration, the P.A. governs parts of the West Bank and sees itself as the legitimate government of a future Palestinian state. However, it faces significant criticism for alleged corruption and authoritarianism under its 89-year-old President, Mahmoud Abbas, who has been in power since 2005 without further national elections. Many Palestinians desire his resignation, and Israeli officials frequently accuse the P.A. of mismanagement and fostering hostility.
Despite these criticisms, Arab nations largely support the P.A.’s involvement. Mr. Abbas has stated his government’s willingness to take responsibility for Gaza post-war, explicitly ruling out Hamas’s participation. However, any future role for the P.A. is likely contingent on substantial reforms, including its security practices. The deep-seated rivalry between Hamas and the P.A. (stemming from Hamas’s violent takeover of Gaza in 2007) remains a formidable challenge to any unified Palestinian governance structure.
As the parties continue to navigate these complex proposals, the path to a lasting peace in Gaza remains fraught with significant diplomatic and political hurdles.