The Gaza issue has long been a prominent reflection of regional instability and global power struggles in Middle Eastern politics. The attacks launched by Hamas against Israel on October 7, 2023, and the subsequent large-scale Israeli military operation have re-intensified both violence in the region and international diplomatic efforts. During this process, Israel has carried out large-scale military operations in Gaza, which have been justified by the attacks. In the international public opinion, these operations have been described as “genocide” due to the excessive use of force targeting civilians, the obstruction of humanitarian aid, and the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure.
Furthermore, Israel’s approach has revealed a strategic plan that goes beyond merely neutralizing Hamas and aims to occupy Gaza entirely. At this point, the unlimited and unconditional support that the US has given to Israel has led to the issue becoming even more deeply entrenched on a global scale. The Washington administration has legitimized Israel’s policies both on diplomatic platforms and through military and economic aid. However, this unilateral support has provoked serious reactions from the international community. Numerous states in the United Nations General Assembly and various international forums have characterized Israel’s actions as violations of international law. Many countries, including the United Kingdom and France, have even responded to these developments by officially recognizing Palestine as a state. This has strengthened Palestine’s international status and made the isolation of the US and Israel within the international community more apparent.
It is in this environment that Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan has emerged, not only as an attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also as an effort to restore the declining legitimacy of the United States and soften the increasing pressure from the international community. The plan prioritizes Israel’s security concerns while aiming to open up a limited political space for Palestine, thereby seemingly gaining the support of both regional actors and European states.
The 20-point plan announced by Trump on September 29, while not as exaggerated as he typically presents it, can be described as a significant diplomatic initiative. The plan, outlined in Trump’s characteristic style, essentially revolves around three main pillars. First, the release of all hostages and the return of the bodies of those who lost their lives is an element that emphasizes short-term humanitarian achievements. Second, the demilitarization of Gaza and the exclusion of Hamas from the political process reflect a goal aimed at satisfying Israel’s security concerns. The third pillar aims to establish a new political order in Palestine by proposing that Gaza be temporarily governed by a committee of technocrats under international supervision. These points demonstrate the US’s security-centered approach as well as its quest to establish international legitimacy.
The regional support for the plan has made the diplomatic weight of the US visible once again. The positive attitude that emerged as a result of contacts with countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan demonstrates the willingness of Arab and Muslim states in the region to contribute to at least a short-term ceasefire and humanitarian relief. Support from the UK, France, Italy, and the Council of Europe on the European front shows that the plan has also been well received in the Western world. However, French President Emmanuel Macron’s emphasis on a two-state solution in particular reveals that the plan is seen as part of a temporary interim solution rather than a final peace agreement.
In Palestinian domestic politics, on the other hand, the plan has had different repercussions. Hamas’ statement that “we will not give up our weapons as long as the occupation continues” has revealed the organization’s determination to maintain its military strength and a stance that conflicts with Israel’s fundamental expectations. In contrast, the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank has cautiously responded positively to the plan, supporting elements such as the renewal of elections and the guarantee of humanitarian aid. This approach reflects Fatah’s quest to strengthen its legitimacy and points to an effort to establish a balance against Hamas in Palestinian domestic politics, which has been reinforced by international support.
Another noteworthy aspect of the plan is Israel’s direct contact with Qatar. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s apology for the attack on Doha and his assurance that there would be no similar attacks in the future indicate that Qatar’s influence over Hamas could play a significant role in the process. This situation points to the possibility of a new diplomatic opening in Israel-Qatar relations, as well as being part of the US’s quest to gain regional legitimacy for its plan.
In the short term, Trump’s 20-point peace plan has contributed to the creation of a positive diplomatic atmosphere in the international community and has strengthened expectations that humanitarian losses in Gaza can be reduced. Nevertheless, Hamas’s rigid stance on disarmament and Israel’s continued military operations significantly weaken the plan’s chances of implementation. Thus, this initiative appears to be more of a temporary ceasefire or a limited diplomatic compromise than a lasting peace arrangement. Despite this, three key outcomes of the plan stand out: First, diplomacy has become a priority tool again, as the US has brought regional and global actors together around the same negotiating table. Second, it has brought the Hamas-Fatah rivalry in Palestinian domestic politics into the international arena. Third, it has elevated mediating actors, especially Qatar, to a more visible and influential position in the process.
The applicability of Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan is highly limited. There are three main reasons for why this is the case: Firstly, Hamas’s outright rejection of disarmament and the fact that the majority of the Palestinian people do not trust such steps as long as Israel continues its occupation policies prevent the plan from gaining traction on the ground. Second, Israel’s tendency to continue its military operations even while peace talks are ongoing, using security concerns as an excuse to perpetuate the status quo on the ground (new settlements, blockade, military control). This situation has created a deep conviction among Palestinians that the “peace process” rhetoric is merely a strategy to play for time. Furthermore, according to various international reports and statements by some UN officials, attacks have been carried out on humanitarian infrastructure, including UN offices, schools, and logistics facilities, during the conflict; strikes on such targets have hampered humanitarian access and made it even more difficult to establish an environment of trust. Such incidents, coupled with the lack of security guarantees on the ground and humanitarian law concerns, make the implementation of the plan even more difficult. Thirdly, due to the US’s special relationship with Israel and its prioritization of Israel’s security at the center of its foreign policy, it is nearly impossible for Washington to act as a neutral mediator. The US generally prioritizes Israel’s security concerns in diplomatic efforts, pushing Palestinian sovereignty demands to the background.
In this context, the question of whether the US truly desires “peace” becomes critical. The Washington administration announces peace plans in the face of intense international public pressure and growing human losses; yet these plans mostly aim to facilitate short-term ceasefires or humanitarian aid rather than a lasting solution. In other words, the US priority has been to keep the crisis at a manageable level and appease international reactions by protecting Israel’s interests, rather than ending the conflict entirely.
In conclusion, while Trump’s 20-point Gaza plan is a diplomatic initiative in theory, its practical implementation appears highly unlikely. The stance taken by Israel and the US in past peace processes raises serious questions regarding their impartiality and reliability. Establishing a lasting peace will only be possible with the involvement of a broader international guarantee mechanism and a clear commitment to a two-state solution, not just from the US.
