By P M Amza –

P M Amza

Introduction

Donald Trump’s 20-point peace proposal for Gaza has emerged at a moment of unprecedented crisis. Gaza’s infrastructure lies in ruins, hospitals struggle to function, and civilians are pushed to the brink of famine. The plan, ambitious in design, seeks to halt the fighting, secure the release of hostages, facilitate reconstruction, and lay down a conditional path to Palestinian statehood. On paper, it reads as the most comprehensive American blueprint for Middle East peace in decades. Yet its unveiling coincides with two grim realities: Hamas has rejected the proposal outright, and Israel has simultaneously tightened its blockade, obstructing food and humanitarian convoys. Against this background, the central question arises: how viable is Trump’s 20-point plan, and can it realistically succeed where so many previous initiatives have failed?

The Structure of the 20-Point Proposal

The 20-point proposal envisions a carefully staged sequence of military, political, and humanitarian measures. At its heart lies a ceasefire linked to a comprehensive hostage–prisoner exchange. Israel would gradually withdraw its forces from Gaza, with each phase tied to verifiable security benchmarks monitored by international actors. Hamas and other militant factions would be required to disarm, though the plan holds out the offer of amnesty to those willing to renounce violence.

Governance would be entrusted to a transitional body of technocrats, described as a “Board of Peace,” supported by international backers to restore basic services and ensure law and order. Reconstruction and economic rehabilitation would be underwritten largely by Gulf states and supervised with U.S. involvement, while the long-term political vision includes a conditional pathway to Palestinian statehood. This would be contingent on reforms within the Palestinian Authority and the establishment of permanent security guarantees for Israel. To enforce these arrangements, a multinational stabilization force would be deployed to prevent spoilers and protect civilians. In design, the plan attempts to integrate security, governance, and reconstruction into a single framework.

Hamas Rejects the Plan

The viability of the plan was immediately thrown into doubt by Hamas’s rejection. For Hamas’s military leadership, the demand for disarmament is existential, as the organization’s identity and legitimacy are rooted in its claim to armed resistance. To disarm, therefore, would be to dissolve the organization itself. Although reports suggested that some political leaders based abroad might have been willing to consider revisions, the Gaza-based leadership dismissed the proposal categorically. Without Hamas’s consent, the central pillars of the plan—namely the ceasefire, the disarmament process, and the handover of governance—are effectively impossible to enforce.

The rejection must also be understood within the wider history of U.S.-brokered efforts in the Middle East. From the Oslo Accords of 1993 to Trump’s own “Deal of the Century” in 2020, Palestinians have often perceived American initiatives as skewed toward Israeli security priorities while deferring Palestinian sovereignty indefinitely. Against that history, Hamas’s outright dismissal of the plan is less surprising than inevitable.

Israel’s Blockade and the Humanitarian Stranglehold

Equally damaging to the plan’s credibility is Israel’s continuing blockade of Gaza. Aid convoys have been obstructed, food deliveries restricted, and fuel supplies limited. The United Nations and humanitarian agencies have warned that Gaza is on the verge of famine, with more than 80 percent of its population facing acute food insecurity. UNICEF has noted that thousands of children are suffering from severe malnutrition, while hospitals lack even basic medical supplies.

On October 2, Israeli forces blocked key access routes in Gaza City, effectively trapping residents and preventing relief trucks from reaching northern districts. Attempts by the Global Sumud Flotilla to deliver aid by sea were intercepted, and most of its vessels seized. Images of desperate civilians scrambling for limited bread and food rations highlight the depth of Gaza’s crisis. In this context, a peace proposal that does not immediately guarantee humanitarian access risks being dismissed as detached from reality. Reconstruction promises cannot be taken seriously while people are starving.

International Reactions

Israel has endorsed the 20-point proposal, welcoming its focus on disarmament and phased withdrawal as aligned with Israeli security priorities. Yet even within Israel, critics argue that the plan fails to provide sufficient guarantees of demilitarization and could allow Hamas to regroup. Arab and Islamic states issued a rare joint statement through the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, and Pakistan. While welcoming Trump’s “sincere efforts,” they emphasized that any agreement must secure withdrawal, humanitarian access, reconstruction, and Palestinian rights. This coordinated response reflects a cautious willingness to cooperate with the United States if the plan proves credible.

India has also endorsed the proposal, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi describing it as a viable pathway to peace and development for both Palestinians and Israelis, as well as the wider West Asian region. By contrast, Sri Lanka has not issued any official statement at the time of writing, a silence that stands in contrast to its traditional alignment with the Palestinian cause in multilateral forums. Egypt, for its part, has warned that any arrangement must not involve the forced displacement of Palestinians into Sinai. Gulf donors have indicated a willingness to finance reconstruction but remain wary of political entanglement. The European Union has expressed cautious support but stressed that viability depends on a genuine and time-bound pathway to sovereignty, while the United Nations has welcomed the diplomatic push but warned that without humanitarian relief, the plan will not take root.

Viable Elements of the Proposal

Some aspects of the plan remain viable despite the setbacks. The linkage of a ceasefire to a hostage–prisoner exchange responds to urgent needs on both sides and offers a potentially workable first step. A phased Israeli withdrawal, if monitored, could help prevent the vacuum that followed the unilateral disengagement of 2005. The involvement of international governance and donor-backed reconstruction reflects lessons drawn from post-conflict experiences in Kosovo, East Timor, and Bosnia. Even the amnesty clause, though controversial, provides an off-ramp for combatants willing to disengage from violence.

Why Viability Falters

Nevertheless, the plan falters under the weight of present realities. Hamas’s rejection removes the indispensable interlocutor for ceasefire and disarmament. Israel’s blockade of humanitarian aid erodes the plan’s moral standing and alienates Palestinian civilians whose cooperation is essential for implementation. A transitional “Board of Peace,” however well-intentioned, risks being seen as foreign imposition rather than legitimate governance. The promise of statehood tied to conditional reforms risks being dismissed as yet another postponement of Palestinian aspirations, while Israel insists on absolute security guarantees that further delay sovereignty.  Actors such as Iran and Hezbollah retain the capacity to undermine the process, while donors may hesitate to fund reconstruction in the absence of durable peace.

Lessons from History

The failures of earlier peace efforts provide a sobering backdrop. The Oslo Accords generated initial optimism but collapsed under the weight of mistrust and settlement expansion. Trump’s 2020 “Deal of the Century” was dismissed outright by Palestinians as offering autonomy without true sovereignty. The current proposal attempts to address multiple dimensions of the conflict—security, governance, reconstruction, and political rights—within a single package, making it more comprehensive than its predecessors. Yet without addressing fundamental asymmetries of power and ensuring local legitimacy, it risks joining the catalogue of past disappointments.

Conclusion

Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace proposal is bold, detailed, and comprehensive, but boldness does not equate to viability. With Hamas rejecting the plan and Israel maintaining a blockade that prevents even food from reaching civilians, its credibility is deeply undermined. For the plan to succeed, Hamas would need to re-engage, Israel would need to guarantee humanitarian access, and international actors would have to enforce mechanisms that build confidence among all parties. Absent these shifts, the 20-point proposal risks being remembered as yet another ambitious but unrealized attempt at resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

References

1. Politico. Trump touts peace plan for Israel-Hamas, but Hamas has not agreed. Sept 29, 2025.

2. Reuters. Trump peace plan envisions new Gaza “Board of Peace.” Sept 29, 2025.

3. The Guardian. Hamas military leadership rejects Trump Gaza plan. Oct 2, 2025.

4. AP News. Aid in Gaza stalls amid Israeli restrictions; starvation fears grow. Oct 1, 2025.

5. Reuters. Israel blocks main Gaza City road, tightening siege. Oct 2, 2025.

6. Al Jazeera. Israel intercepts Gaza Sumud flotilla vessels. Oct 1, 2025.

7. Haaretz. Arab and Muslim states back Trump Gaza plan. Sept 30, 2025.

8. Pakistan MFA. Joint Statement by the Foreign Ministers of Jordan, UAE, Indonesia, Pakistan, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt. Sept 29, 2025.

9. Indian Express. Modi hails Trump peace plan for Gaza. Sept 30, 2025.

10. Chesterman, S. You, the People: The United Nations, Transitional Administration, and State-Building. Oxford University Press, 2004.

11. Caplan, R. International Governance of War-Torn Territories. Oxford University Press, 2005.