Trump’s Gaza Plan: A Promise of Indefinite Occupation, Not Peace
A proposed peace plan for Gaza, unveiled by former President Donald Trump on September 29, 2025, offers not an end to the ongoing genocide, but rather a framework for indefinite occupation, according to analysts and the plan’s own stipulations. The agreement, presented alongside a visibly pleased Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was touted as “the whole deal, everything getting solved… peace in the Middle East,” and even “one of the great days ever in civilization” by Trump himself, accompanied by what one observer described as “commercials for Trump’s incessant ‘I deserve the Nobel Peace Prize’ campaign.”
However, a closer examination reveals a plan strikingly devoid of enforcement mechanisms for Israel’s obligations, accountability for past actions, adherence to international law, or any genuine pursuit of justice. As one New York Times headline succinctly put it, the 20-point plan “offers Netanyahu [a] victory lap.”
Superficially, the plan contains language that appears encouraging. Provisions include “the war will immediately end,” “Israeli forces will withdraw,” “military operations will be suspended,” and the return of “all hostages, alive and deceased.” Furthermore, Israel pledged to release 250 life sentence prisoners and 1700 Gazans detained after October 7, 2023, including all women and children. The plan also states that “Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza” and that “distribution and aid in the Gaza Strip will proceed without interference.”
These promises, however, are undermined by critical limitations. While Israeli forces are slated to withdraw, they will do so only to a line within Gaza, agreed upon by the United States and Israel, where they will remain indefinitely. The release of hostages is contingent on a 72-hour window following the agreement’s signing, but crucially, Israel is not obligated to release Palestinian prisoners until after all hostages have been returned, raising concerns about potential reneging and a lack of enforcement.
Despite assurances against annexation, Israeli military forces will maintain an occupying presence in Gaza for an undetermined future, gradually withdrawing only as an “international stability force”—foreign troops tasked with occupying the territory—establishes control. This force, it is important to note, is not intended to protect Gaza’s 2 million residents from ongoing genocide, occupation, or apartheid, but rather to ensure Gaza “no longer poses a threat” to Israel or Egypt.
The claim that “the war will immediately end” and “all military operations…will be suspended” rings hollow given Netanyahu’s publicly stated intention to resume full-scale genocide should Israel deem it necessary after the hostages are released.
Indeed, of the 20 points comprising the agreement, only six directly address ending the genocide—and even those are considered weak. The remaining provisions focus on the governance of “New Gaza” – controlled by a coalition of Israeli, US, British, and other international forces under the joint leadership of Trump and Tony Blair – and its economic reconstruction, funded by international financiers and real estate developers. “New Gaza’s” role will be defined by its inability to “pose a threat to its neighbors or its people,” a guarantee to be enforced by regional Arab governments and the International Stability Force, tasked with ensuring Hamas’s compliance.
A critical omission is any acknowledgement of Israel’s own potential threats to regional stability, particularly given its recent military actions in seven countries – Qatar, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Palestine – over the past few months. The agreement fails to address the need for Israel to “comply with its obligations” not to pose a threat to its neighbors.
Ultimately, Palestinians will have no agency in governing their own land. Following the disarmament of Hamas, Gaza will initially be governed by a “temporary transitional…technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee” comprised of “qualified Palestinians and international experts.” This committee will be overseen by a newly formed US-UK team, chaired by Trump himself and featuring Tony Blair as a “pro-consul,” mirroring the US-controlled governance structures established in post-invasion Afghanistan and Iraq. This “Board of Peace” will oversee a “Trump economic development plan” for Gaza’s reconstruction.
A limited role for the Palestinian Authority is vaguely referenced, contingent upon its completion of “reform programs” outlined in previous proposals, including Trump’s 2020 peace plan and a Saudi-French proposal. This effectively grants the United States and its allies the power to determine the PA’s involvement, a concession Netanyahu appears determined to block. He reportedly reassured his far-right cabinet that the reference to a Palestinian state was “ambiguous” and that the PA would be excluded from any governing role, stating, “The Palestinian Authority (PA) is out… Israel and the US are the ones who decide if it will meet the conditions, and there’s an entire wall of conditions.” Palestinian civil society is conspicuously absent from the plan, as are any provisions for ending the occupation, apartheid, or colonial settlement.
The plan does not guarantee a permanent cessation of hostilities. Netanyahu’s effusive but vague responses during the joint press conference on September 29 left ample room for divergent interpretations once he returned to his domestic political base.
According to The Times of Israel, Netanyahu celebrated the agreement as a triumph, declaring in a Hebrew-language video: “Now the whole world, including the Arab and Muslim world, is pressuring Hamas to accept the terms that we created together with Trump, to bring back all the hostages—the living and the dead—while the IDF stays in the majority of the Strip.” He rhetorically asked, “Who would have believed it?!”
Initial drafts of the proposal, shared with mediators in Qatar and Egypt, and other Arab and Muslim states, received preliminary support. However, Netanyahu subsequently secured significant concessions from Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and real estate associate, Steve Witkoff.
Kushner, instrumental in brokering the 2020 Abraham Accords – which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations in exchange for US arms, trade deals, and diplomatic concessions – appears to have played a similar role in revising Trump’s 20-point plan to accommodate Netanyahu’s demands.
Reports indicate that some of the eight Arab and Muslim governments initially supportive of the proposal expressed anger over the last-minute changes. Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdel Aaty acknowledged “many positive elements” but cautioned that “there are also elements that require extensive discussion and, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.”
Given their reliance on the United States and desire to maintain the momentum of the Abraham Accords, these governments may be hesitant to withdraw their support, but the possibility remains. Regardless, the deal appears more aligned with Trump’s ambition to reshape the Middle East around a US/Israel/Arab Gulf axis than with achieving genuine peace or ending the genocide of Palestinians.
The response from Hamas remains uncertain. The plan’s limitations are clear, both in terms of ending the immediate military assault and famine in Gaza, and in the likely future of indefinite foreign occupation alongside the continued de facto annexation of the West Bank. The denial of Palestinian agency is also stark. Given Israel’s history of violating ceasefires, there is little reason to trust Tel Aviv’s claims at face value.
Despite these concerns, the ongoing genocide and famine-induced deaths – averaging over 100 per day – demand a response. The decision of Hamas, the Palestinian national movement, or the hundreds of thousands struggling for survival will have profound consequences.
Regardless of the outcome, those committed to Palestinian freedom, justice, and dignity must continue to fight to end the genocide. This requires mobilization at all levels, including community protests, pressure on Congress to cut military aid to Israel, and support for global initiatives like civil society flotillas and legal challenges at the International Court of Justice.
Public opinion is shifting, but the urgency of the situation demands immediate action. As one analyst noted, “We have no time to wait for politicians to catch up.”
