Donald Trump’s proposed framework for ending the Gaza war and rebuilding the territory is currently riding a wave of momentum. This drive is largely fueled by Trump himself, as well as support from leading Arab and Islamic nations including Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Turkey. Even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has endorsed the plan, despite its mention of a potential Palestinian state, a concept he has previously denounced.
Trump has set a tight deadline for Hamas, demanding a decision within “three to four days.” Failure to agree will mean the continuation of the war.
Interestingly, the proposed deal bears a striking resemblance to an initiative put forth by Joe Biden over a year ago. The intervening period has seen immense loss of Palestinian civilian life, widespread destruction in Gaza, and the current humanitarian crisis of famine, while Israeli hostages have endured prolonged suffering and captivity.
Reports from Israel suggest that the Biden initiative faltered because Netanyahu, influenced by hard-right elements in his government, shifted the goalposts with new demands. Nonetheless, this framework marks a significant development, as it represents Donald Trump actively pressuring Israel to cease hostilities. Trump possesses a unique ability to make it difficult for leaders to refuse his proposals, and the potential consequences of a public rebuke, akin to the treatment of Ukraine’s President Zelensky by the US administration, loom large. However, political landscapes can shift once leaders depart the White House.
Before his return to Israel, Netanyahu, speaking from Washington D.C., shared his perspective. He highlighted the concept of an independent Palestine existing alongside Israel—the two-state solution—a notion recently recognized by the UK and other Western nations.
The Trump document offers a vague acknowledgment of Palestinian independence, stating that following reforms to the Palestinian Authority, conditions “may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognise as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.”
The mere prospect of a future Palestinian state, however distant, proved contentious for Netanyahu. Despite offering “whole-hearted support” to Trump at the White House, telling him, “I support your plan to end the war in Gaza, which achieves our war aims,” his later remarks to the Israeli public painted a different picture.
In a video message delivered in Hebrew, intended for his domestic audience, Netanyahu emphatically denied agreeing to a Palestinian state. “No, absolutely not,” he stated. “It’s not even written in the agreement. But we did say one thing. That we would forcibly resist a Palestinian state.” He added that Trump had agreed with this position.
The plan’s strength lies in its momentum, but its significant weakness is the lack of detailed specifics, a common characteristic of Trump’s diplomatic approach. While the document endorsed by Trump and Netanyahu, and supported by the UK and other European countries, outlines stages for an Israeli withdrawal, it omits the crucial details necessary to ensure the durability of any diplomatic agreement aimed at ending the conflict.
For the plan to succeed, intricate negotiations will be essential, and the process offers numerous opportunities for breakdown. Mainstream Israeli opposition parties have backed the plan, while the hard-right extremist factions within Netanyahu’s coalition have condemned it. These factions had favored an earlier “Trump Riviera” proposal, which notably included the expulsion of Gaza’s entire population. Jewish extremists advocate for annexing the territory and replacing Palestinians with settlers.
The current plan stipulates that no Palestinian will be forcibly displaced. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, an ultranationalist and prominent settler leader, drew parallels between the current plan and the Munich Agreement of 1938, where Britain and France pressured Czechoslovakia to cede territory to Nazi Germany.
Should Hamas accept the agreement, and if Netanyahu seeks to appease Smotrich and other extremists who bolster his government, he will have ample opportunities to derail negotiations by blaming Hamas. The ambiguity inherent in the Trump framework provides Israel with considerable latitude to veto any developments it opposes.
Ultimately, resolving a deeply entrenched conflict that has spanned over a century may prove exceedingly difficult. From a long-term perspective, the UK and many other nations outside of Israel and the US believe that any solution that does not pave the way for Palestinian self-determination will fail to establish lasting peace.
The joint statement from Arab and Islamic foreign ministers, expressing their support, indicated their belief that the plan would lead to a full Israeli withdrawal, reconstruction of Gaza, and “a path for just peace on the basis of the two-state solution under which Gaza is fully integrated with the West Bank in a Palestinian state in accordance with international law.” This statement could be interpreted as a subtle reference to the International Court of Justice’s ruling that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is unlawful.
Netanyahu appears to believe that this agreement brings Israel closer to its ultimate victory over Hamas. He rejects any Palestinian claims to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
The existence of one plan, yet two vastly different interpretations of its meaning, highlights a significant challenge. The framework’s inherent ambiguity allows for both perspectives, which is hardly an auspicious start to the peace process.