Since Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, several well-intentioned and carefully planned strategies to end the conflict have failed. Some ceasefire proposals came close to fruition, only to falter. Some of these were approved by Israel but rejected by Hamas. Hamas, the main actor for any Gaza plan, has not officially agreed to US President Donald Trump’s latest proposal, and its recent actions show both its hesitation and internal disagreements. Indeed, as the Israelis were solemnly observing the holiest day in the Jewish calendar — Yom Kippur — on Thursday, rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel, highlighting the fragility of the situation.
Will the latest proposal be any different? Is it a 20-point or a 21-point proposal? Last week, the Israeli media suggested the latter, and its 18th clause stated: Israel agrees not to carry out future strikes in Qatar. The US and the international community have acknowledged Doha’s important mediating role in the Gaza conflict. Israel has apologised for violating Qatari sovereignty and pledged not to repeat these actions, and the US has declared that any attack on Qatar would be an attack on the US itself. Given this consensus, it is now a 20-point plan.
So, what are the main elements of the latest 20-point Gaza plan?
It outlines the key demands of Israel, the Palestinians, and the international community. An immediate ceasefire should be enacted, along with the release of the remaining Israeli hostages, the return of the bodies of fallen Israelis, the freeing of about 2,000 Palestinians currently in Israeli prisons, the withdrawal of the Israeli military from the Gaza Strip, free flow of international aid to the besieged people of Gaza under UN and international supervision, and international commitment to the reconstruction of
the Gaza Strip. It also calls for reforms
in Palestinian government and the “de-
radicalisation” of the Gaza Strip. At the
same time, the plan also includes some controversial elements.
First, it grants amnesty to Hamas members who pledge “peaceful coexistence” with Israel and are willing to disarm themselves. In addition, it provides safe passage for those militants to “receiving countries” if they wish. This provision aligns with the demand expressed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas during his speech at the UN General Assembly: “One state, one law and one legal security force.”
Second, the Hamas-led administration that has governed the Gaza Strip since July 2007 will be replaced by an internationally supervised transitional government composed of Palestinian technocrats. The internationally recognised Palestinian National Authority will gradually assume control. Some see this as the eventual American acknowledgement of the need to consider the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a unified political entity. At the same time, it also gives an interesting twist to the situation. Having lost effective control of the Gaza Strip,
Abbas is seeking the international community’s help to regain control.
Three, armed or unarmed, Hamas will have no role or influence in the future of the Gaza Strip. This is a devastating blow to the organisation that has dominated the Palestinian national movement since its founding in 1988, during the First Intifada. It has successfully challenged and, at times, even outshone all institutions led by Yasser Arafat, including the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the PNA. Without being a party to either of them, Hamas has prevented these organisations from gaining popular support for the idea of co-existence with Israel. One could argue that, like the Israeli right, Hamas has successfully undermined and ultimately destroyed theOslo process.
Four, it states that Israel “will not occupy or annex Gaza” and that the Israeli military “will gradually hand over territory it currently occupies”. There would be an alternative “security force” that would take control of the Gaza Strip to ensure “stability”. It is unclear whether the provision is temporary or a long-term commitment.
So far, Trump has managed to secure the support of key Muslim-majority countries, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, and Pakistan, for the Gaza plan. This could be a signal of growing international frustration over Hamas’s conditions for an early end to the Gaza crisis. Their endorsement of the plan also indicates their approval of dismantling Hamas and removing it from the Gaza Strip.
However, the Hamas provision has a downside — it may not sit well with pro-Hamas clergy in countries like Pakistan. They have long been critical of co-existence with Israel. Expecting them to accept the sudden removal of Hamas from the Gaza Strip is unrealistic and could create domestic pressures in these countries. The same is true for Turkey, which has emerged as a major supporter of Hamas in recent years.
However, the most critical factor, one that finds no mention in the Gaza plan, is the future of the Palestinians. Coming amid growing Western support for and recognition of the Palestinian state, the Gaza plan remains silent on the two-state solution. Despite his aggressive actions towards Israel, Trump is quietly endorsing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s stance on this issue. Speaking to a mostly empty UN General Assembly Hall last week, Netanyahu said, “Giving the Palestinians a state one mile from Jerusalem after October 7th is like giving al-Qaeda a state one mile from New York City after September 11th. This is sheer madness. It’s wild, and we won’t do it… Israel will not allow you to shove a terror state down our throats.” For weeks, several Israeli leaders have portrayed Palestinian statehood as a “reward” for the October 7 massacre. Hence, even if Hamas accepts it, Trump’s Gaza peace plan will remain a shaky one navigating uncharted waters.
The writer teaches contemporary Middle East at Jawaharlal Nehru University
