Opinion
Peace or the illusion of peace in Gaza: what will Trump's settlement plan bring?
The indirect Israeli-Hamas talks that began in Sharm el-Sheikh have opened a new window for ending the nearly two-year-long bloody war and humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The talks are based on a 20-point plan presented by US President Donald Trump a few days ago. It is planned that the parties will initially work on strengthening the ceasefire, exchanging hostages and prisoners, and establishing a transitional government in Gaza. The start of the talks, according to international media, was considered promising, especially in terms of outlining a roadmap for implementing the plan. This is no small feat, considering that Hamas agreed to the talks under the condition of a harsh ultimatum presented by the US president.
Trump’s plan is quite detailed, but the general gist is as follows: an immediate ceasefire, the bilateral return of all hostages and prisoners within 72 hours, the creation of a humanitarian corridor to Gaza, a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza’s main settlements and the deployment of an international stabilization force, the disarmament of Hamas, the establishment of a technocratic/transitional administration under international auspices with a vague horizon of self-determination for further reconstruction and restoration of statehood.
What do the residents of Gaza gain?
The proposal of such a plan is primarily an existential necessity for the Palestinians. The death toll in Gaza has reached tens of thousands, and the humanitarian crisis continues even against the backdrop of negotiations. Trump’s proposal provides for the immediate entry of large-scale aid into Gaza, the reconstruction of infrastructure through the UN and the Red Crescent, without the intervention of Israel and Hamas. The suffering local population will have the opportunity to rebuild their homes with the support of international organizations and countries, and the seemingly endless process of infanticide will stop.
What does Donald Trump gain
However, suppose the parties reach common ground through the negotiations that have begun on the plan and the roadmap for its implementation. In that case, it will be a significant political victory for US President Donald Trump himself and another step towards the coveted Nobel Peace Prize. Moreover, the US President has shown surprising broad-mindedness this time, in contrast to his previous frivolous and superficial approaches. First, he has increased the viability potential of this plan by forming a regional consensus, which also involves Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and, to some extent, Turkey in the process. Second, the concept of this plan is based on the rights of the Palestinian people to live on their own land, unlike the 2025 idea of settling Palestinians in neighboring countries, which Trump put forward in January, is reaching a stalemate. Trump has begun to approach conflicts more seriously, realizing that his mere status as US president is not enough to find and impose workable compromises.
What Israel and Hamas stand to lose and gain
The implementation of this plan can be considered, at least temporarily, a political defeat for Israel, in the sense that the latter considered its most important task to be the final destruction of Hamas as an institution and, under the cover of this goal, the complete occupation of Gaza. Israel will not achieve these goals at this stage. Moreover, it will withdraw its troops under the conditions when it is now forced to negotiate with Hamas itself, which, according to the plan, should not dissolve itself in the post-negotiation period, but only demilitarize, disarm, and renounce power or be part of it.
Instead, Israel reaps a sure strategic dividend in the issue of the status of Palestine. In fact, with the Trump plan, the recognition of the state of Palestine is removed from the current agenda, Palestinian autonomy continues to remain in the political discourse, and only the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, which the world had recognized for a long time, is recognized.
It is evident that by agreeing to these negotiations with Hamas, Israel is solving the issue of freezing or suspending the widespread international process of recognizing the state of Palestine. A process that led both Jerusalem and Washington to almost complete isolation on this issue. In this sense, the process of recognizing Palestine as a means of forcing Israel to make concessions has yielded results. For the sake of peace, the international community will come to terms with Israel, agreeing to the status of Palestinian autonomy. The plan, in essence, emphasizes technocratic governance and security architecture, leaving the issue of Palestinian statehood to later stages. But what it means to leave the issue of status to later stages of negotiations is best illustrated by the history of the Karabakh conflict. In essence, the only strategic benefit Hamas gains from the Trump plan is the opportunity to maintain its existence.
Risks with a short-term effect on peace
Israel can also benefit in the sense that by deploying a depoliticized, professional governance model under international control in the Gaza Strip, and an international stabilization force, it will significantly reduce the prospect of Hamas regaining power. But this seems vague due to two risks. First, Hamas, as mentioned, will not cease to exist as an organization and will initially disintegrate among the population. It is not excluded that, as has happened before, the organization may use this period to regroup, mobilize its forces, and wait for a favorable international situation to exact revenge. Moreover, its indirect ally, Iran, is in no particular hurry to welcome Trump’s peace plan. Tehran is only expressing “cautious support”, and with emphasized reservations regarding disarmament and the fulfillment of certain obligations. Hamas may perceive such a floating position of Iran as a temporary tactical retreat and support for its chosen waiting tactics. Suppose we add to this the fact that Israel, in fact, agrees to peace on the condition of not ensuring its primary goal - the elimination of Hamas. In that case, it becomes clear that in the future, the parties may seize any opportunity to revive the military conflict, which will be remarkably realistic if the mechanisms of international control envisaged by the Trump plan weaken.
In this sense, the Trump plan will not eliminate the risks of a new conflict, even if it is accepted as a mechanism for resolving the issue. It is another matter whether the parties can “get out of the way” of the issue of the return of hostages and prisoners at this stage.
Gor Abrahamyan
