Two years after Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel and the devastating war that followed, the Middle East stands at a precarious crossroads. The conflict, which began with Hamas’s unprecedented assault and Israel’s punishing military response, has left Gaza shattered, Israel deeply scarred, and regional politics in turmoil. Now, in October 2025, both Israel and Hamas have said they accept in principle U.S. President Donald Trump’s ambitious 20‑point plan to halt the war and chart a path toward enduring peace. Yet, as history has shown, the devil lies in the details.
The plan promises hostages’ release, prisoner exchanges, Hamas disarmament, and a transitional governance structure overseen by an international board. It envisions a multinational stabilisation force and, ultimately, a “credible pathway” to Palestinian statehood. But questions abound: Can Hamas’s political negotiators deliver on commitments made in Qatar? Will Israel trust a fragile ceasefire after repeated violations? Can the Palestinian Authority reclaim legitimacy? And will international partners, from Arab states to Europe, commit troops and resources to stabilise Gaza?
The 20 Point Plan: Broad Contours
At the heart of the U.S. proposal is a phased approach to ending the war. The first step involves the release of all hostages held in Gaza, both living and deceased, accompanied by the release of Palestinian prisoners. Israel would free around 200 prisoners serving life sentences and approximately 1,700 Gazans detained since October 7.
This exchange is designed to set in motion a transitional governance phase. Hamas would disarm, while a technocratic Palestinian force, apolitical and administrative, would oversee day‑to‑day governance. Crucially, this body would be supervised by an international “Board of Peace”, chaired by President Trump and including figures such as former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, alongside other senior global leaders.
The plan also calls for an International Stabilisation Force, composed of Arab and international actors, to coordinate with the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and determine readiness for Israeli withdrawal. Hamas fighters who surrender arms would be offered amnesty or safe passage to third countries. Qatar and Egypt would continue their mediation roles, ensuring Arab involvement in negotiations.
Strategic Calculations
Israel’s acceptance of the plan is cautious and conditional. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly accused Hamas of violating ceasefire terms, most recently when the group returned partial remains of a deceased hostage rather than a complete body. Such incidents have fuelled Israeli skepticism about Hamas’s sincerity.
Israel insists that Hamas disarmament is non‑negotiable and demands clear timelines for the group’s dismantling. The IDF currently controls 53% of Gaza, including farmland, Rafah, and parts of Gaza City. Drone footage from November 2025 shows catastrophic destruction in northern Gaza, underscoring the scale of Israel’s military campaign. For Israel, any withdrawal depends on guarantees that Hamas will not rearm and that international forces can secure borders against weapons smuggling.
Hamas’s position is fraught with contradictions. Its negotiators, based in Qatar, represent the political leadership but must deliver commitments that militant actors on the ground may resist. This disconnect raises doubts about whether Hamas can enforce disarmament or ensure compliance with ceasefire terms.
The group has returned 20 surviving hostages and 17 bodies since the truce began, but delays and partial remains have angered Israel. Hamas denies involvement in recent attacks, such as anti‑tank missiles fired in Rafah, yet Israel remains unconvinced. The looting of an aid truck by Hamas operatives in November further undermined trust, drawing condemnation from U.S. Central Command.
For Hamas, the plan offers both risks and opportunities. Amnesty and safe passage for fighters could ease internal resistance, but surrendering arms and ceding control to a technocratic authority would mean relinquishing the power it has held in Gaza since 2007.
The United States has invested heavily in brokering this plan, not only to end the war but also to restore its credibility in the region. The assassination attempt by Israel on Hamas negotiators in Qatar in September 2025 nearly derailed Gulf‑U.S. relations, highlighting Arab concerns about Washington’s reliability.
For President Trump, the plan is also tied to broader ambitions: sustaining the Abraham Accords, expanding normalisation between Israel and Arab states, and positioning the U.S. as the indispensable mediator in Middle Eastern peace. By chairing the Board of Peace, Trump seeks to centralise U.S. influence while involving trusted figures like Tony Blair to lend international legitimacy. Arab allies question whether Washington can balance Israeli security demands with Palestinian aspirations. European partners, meanwhile, stress the need for a UN mandate for the stabilisation force, with Germany and Jordan explicitly calling for such legitimacy.
The Palestinian Authority (PA), led by Mahmoud Abbas, remains marginalised. Long criticised as ineffective and disconnected from Palestinian realities, the PA has struggled to assert relevance since October 7. The U.S. refusal to grant visas to the PA delegation for recent talks underscored its diminished role. Abbas’s prerecorded video address to the UN General Assembly was a stark reminder of his isolation.
The 20‑point plan envisions a transitional Palestinian governance structure, but whether the PA can credibly lead or even participate remains doubtful. Among Palestinians, the PA is seen as weak, corrupt, and incapable of delivering meaningful change. Without legitimacy, its involvement risks undermining the plan’s credibility.
Arab states, particularly Qatar and Egypt, play crucial mediation roles. Qatar hosts Hamas’s political leadership, while Egypt has long been a broker in Gaza conflicts. Their involvement ensures Arab ownership of the process, but also complicates dynamics, as both must balance relations with Hamas, Israel, and the U.S.
European nations, especially Germany, emphasise the need for international legitimacy through the UN. Jordan has echoed this demand, wary of deploying forces without clear mandates. The proposed stabilisation force would be unprecedented, tasked with training vetted Palestinian police, securing borders, and preventing weapons smuggling. Yet, potential participants remain hesitant, seeking clarity on the rules of engagement and assurances of safety.
Since October 10, 2025, a fragile truce has held, brokered by the U.S. and centred on hostage returns. Yet violations and flare‑ups threaten its durability. Israel accuses Hamas of delaying the return of remains, while Hamas insists it needs time to locate bodies buried under Gaza’s ruins. Skirmishes, such as the Rafah missile attack, and incidents like the looting of aid convoys, further strain the ceasefire.
The truce has allowed limited humanitarian relief, but Gaza remains devastated. Reconstruction is stalled, with efforts likely confined to Israeli‑controlled areas. The enclave is split between Israeli and Hamas control, raising fears of a de facto partition. Armed militias, criminal gangs, and unresolved disarmament issues compound instability, making the truce fragile at best.
The 20‑point plan represents the most comprehensive attempt yet to end the Gaza war and lay the foundations for peace. It addresses immediate humanitarian concerns, including hostage release, prisoner exchanges, and the cessation of fighting, while envisioning long-term solutions through disarmament, transitional governance, and international stabilisation.
Yet, the challenges are immense. Israel demands ironclad guarantees of security, Hamas struggles to reconcile political commitments with militant realities, and the Palestinian Authority faces a crisis of legitimacy. The U.S. seeks to restore credibility and sustain regional partnerships, but Arab and European actors remain cautious, insisting on clarity and international mandates.
The fragile truce underscores both the urgency and fragility of peace. Violations, mistrust, and political divisions threaten to unravel progress. Without sustained commitment, transparency, and genuine compromise, the plan risks becoming another failed blueprint in the long history of Middle Eastern peace efforts.
Leave a Reply