In a momentous address from the White House, former U.S. President Donald Trump, flanked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, declared September 29, 2025, a “historic day for peace.” The administration then released a comprehensive 20-point peace plan for Gaza, which Trump asserted had garnered “incredible support” from nations throughout West Asia and Israel’s neighbors. Prime Minister Netanyahu, following an earlier apology to Qatar for a September 9 strike in Doha, enthusiastically endorsed the Trump plan, stating it aligns perfectly with Israel’s strategic war objectives. Global leaders, from Arab and Islamic Foreign Ministers to the Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India, have largely welcomed the initiative, collectively voicing hope for lasting peace in the troubled West Asia. But what exactly does this extensive Trump plan entail?
The core of this 20-point proposal outlines an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and a significant increase in humanitarian aid for the Palestinian enclave, which has endured two years of devastating Israeli attacks. However, these provisions are contingent on Hamas’s acceptance of the plan. Both Trump and Netanyahu have presented Hamas with an unequivocal ultimatum: agree to the proposal, or Israel will continue its military operations “to finish the job,” with Trump pledging full U.S. backing for ongoing hostilities. The proposal envisions Gaza transforming into a “deradicalized, terror-free zone that poses no threat to its neighbors.” To achieve this, Hamas is mandated to release all hostages, both living and deceased, within 72 hours, and Israel forces will withdraw to a predetermined line within the territory. Upon the hostages’ release, Israel would free 250 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences, alongside approximately 1,700 Gazans who were detained after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack.
Addressing Core Challenges
This peace initiative directly confronts three long-standing and critical issues that have previously stalled Gaza peace negotiations: the ultimate fate of Hamas, the governance structure for Gaza “the day after” the conflict, and the extent of Israel’s military presence in the Strip. Despite two years of intense warfare, Israel has not achieved a decisive military victory over Hamas, though the militant group’s operational capabilities have been severely curtailed. Arab nations and other key stakeholders have consistently advocated for the Palestinian Authority, currently based in Ramallah in the West Bank, to assume an administrative role in post-war Gaza – a suggestion Israel has consistently rejected. Furthermore, Prime Minister Netanyahu has firmly opposed a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.
Regarding Hamas, the Trump plan explicitly states that the group will have no role in Gaza’s post-war administration. It demands the group’s complete decommissioning and the destruction of its offensive capabilities, including weapons production facilities and underground tunnels. Should Hamas leaders agree to these terms, they would be granted amnesty and safe passage out of Gaza if they choose to depart the enclave. The plan also proposes the establishment of a temporary transitional governance committee to manage Gaza’s daily affairs. Oversight of this committee would fall to a ‘Board of Peace,’ an international body chaired by Donald Trump himself, with members including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who helped author the plan. Concerning the presence of Israeli troops, the plan suggests a gradual withdrawal from Gaza. However, Netanyahu has clarified that the IDF will maintain a buffer zone inside the enclave, effectively ruling out a full Israeli pullout.
The Role of an International Force
The United States intends to collaborate with Arab nations and other “international partners” to establish a temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF) for immediate deployment in Gaza. While the specifics of the ISF remain undisclosed, its mission will be to provide security and train Palestinian police officers, working in consultation with Jordan and Egypt. The plan positions this force as “the long-term internal security solution.” Crucially, it assures that Palestinians will not be forcibly displaced from Gaza, and Israel will neither occupy nor annex the territory. While the proposal lacks a specific timeline, Gaza is slated to remain under the control of the Board of Peace until the Palestinian Authority’s “reform program is faithfully carried out”— though it remains unclear who will implement and oversee these reforms.
Lingering Questions and Concerns
While former President Trump presented his 20-point proposal as a significant step towards peace and has secured endorsements from both Prime Minister Netanyahu and parts of the Arab world, it appears to offer minimal genuine hope for Palestinians beyond a temporary reprieve from daily Israeli violence. If Hamas rejects the proposal, Trump and Netanyahu can easily attribute blame to the Islamist militant group, thereby justifying a continuation of the war that has already claimed over 65,000 Palestinian lives in Gaza in under two years. Even if the conflict persists, Messrs. Trump, Netanyahu, and Blair could proceed with their plan by establishing their international temporary governance in areas deemed “terror-free.”
Should Hamas, under mounting pressure, ultimately accept the proposal, the group would be compelled to demobilize and relinquish control of Gaza to an externally managed body. Israeli forces would maintain a presence on the ground, within what the Trump plan refers to as a “security perimeter,” until Gaza is “properly secure from any resurgent terror threat.” The Palestinian Authority would have no meaningful governing role, and Israel would retain the unilateral right to resume military action at any time. Importantly, the proposal conspicuously omits any mention of the West Bank, where Israeli settlements and settler violence continue to expand, leading to the displacement of tens of thousands of Palestinians. Far from being a true roadmap to peace, the Trump plan appears to be an internationally convenient arrangement designed to place Gaza under external control and neutralize Hamas—an objective Israel failed to achieve militarily—without addressing the fundamental political questions that fuel the heart of the conflict.