President Donald Trump has unveiled a 20-point peace plan for Gaza that he hailed as “potentially one of the great days ever in civilization.” Even for a leader known for sweeping declarations, the comment set expectations extremely high. The proposal, however, reflects Trump’s tendency to frame announcements as historic breakthroughs while relying on bold optimism to push rival factions toward agreement.
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza remains dire, with tens of thousands dead since the conflict reignited after Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attacks, and hostages still in captivity. Against this backdrop, Trump’s initiative stands out as his most detailed and realistic attempt yet to end the war. Unlike earlier visions,such as his fantastical idea of transforming Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East”,the plan follows a step-by-step approach over months. It aims to combine immediate measures with longer-term goals, offering Palestinians a potential path forward while creating space for renewed Israeli-Palestinian dialogue.
Central to the proposal is an immediate ceasefire, the release of Israeli hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, a phased Israeli withdrawal, disarmament of Hamas, and the establishment of a transitional authority in Gaza under international oversight. Netanyahu endorsed the framework during a Washington visit, publicly aligning with Trump after consultations with Arab and Muslim leaders. Yet skepticism lingers. The Middle East has seen countless peace initiatives fail amid political opportunism, historical grievances, and mistrust on both sides.
Even if Hamas were to accept the deal, implementing the release of hostages within 72 hours poses enormous challenges. The fragile Gaza battlefield could also produce flashpoints that derail progress. Critics point to Trump’s handling of Ukraine as a cautionary example,grand claims of breakthroughs and photo opportunities gave way to escalating violence and diplomatic deadlock. His impatience with the slow, detailed work of diplomacy, combined with the White House’s tendency to misread deep-seated conflicts, may limit the chances of success.
A major question is whether Trump is willing to apply sustained pressure and leverage. For months, he has refrained from pressing Netanyahu directly, even as Israel’s global isolation deepened. But during his Washington meetings, Trump showed signs of shifting. He arranged a call between Netanyahu and Qatar’s prime minister, during which Netanyahu expressed regret over a recent incident that violated Qatari sovereignty. Observers saw this as an unusual display of Trump nudging the Israeli leader, raising speculation about whether he might do so more consistently.
Netanyahu welcomed the plan, saying it aligned with Israel’s goals of freeing hostages, dismantling Hamas’ military and political power, and ensuring Gaza can never again threaten Israel. Yet his track record suggests caution. At home, his far-right coalition partners oppose compromise and seek harsher measures, including annexation of Palestinian territory. Netanyahu could risk his government by enforcing Trump’s vision, but many analysts believe he endorsed it knowing Hamas might reject it, giving him cover to continue the war.
For Hamas, isolation is also mounting, with Arab and Muslim leaders largely supporting the proposal. Trump argues the group is the only holdout. But whether his optimism proves justified remains uncertain. The initiative’s fate will depend not only on Hamas’ decision but also on whether Trump and Netanyahu are truly prepared to pursue peace beyond rhetoric.
