Barrister Usman Ali, Ph.D.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s newly announced 20-point Gaza peace plan has added fresh urgency to a war that has dragged on for years and placed its heaviest burden on ordinary Palestinians. Unveiled with much fanfare alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the plan includes an immediate ceasefire, exchanges of prisoners and hostages, phased Israeli withdrawals, dismantling of Hamas’s military infrastructure, and the creation of a transitional government under international supervision. At first glance, it looks comprehensive. But a closer look shows that while the plan carries certain strengths, it also suffers from significant weaknesses. One immediate strength is that, if Israel abandons its intransigence and agrees to a ceasefire, Palestinians would finally breathe a sigh of relief after years of suffocating pressure. Yet without greater realism and honesty, the prospects for lasting peace remain limited.
This plan was not written overnight; it likely involved months of consultations, including with some Muslim states. Still, its weakness lies in implementation. Hostages are to be released within 72 hours in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. Israeli forces would withdraw in phases, conditional on disarmament benchmarks. Hamas would be excluded from governance, replaced temporarily by a technocratic board of foreign experts and a few Palestinian representatives. On paper, these appear decisive. But who will verify that tunnels are dismantled? Who will monitor ceasefire violations? And how can Palestinians trust that Israeli withdrawals will be complete rather than cosmetic? Most glaringly, Hamas, the de facto power in Gaza, was not consulted. To issue ultimatums without engaging the key actor is less diplomacy than imposition.
The deeper problem is that for Hamas, disarming under foreign oversight is tantamount to political suicide. No resistance movement willingly dissolves itself, especially when its support base has been devastated by war and clings to the idea of self-defense. Israel, on the other hand, faces a severe credibility crisis. Palestinians have lived through decades of broken promises and shifting goalposts. Why should they believe, this time will be different? Netanyahu himself has already hinted that Israeli forces could remain in parts of Gaza even after any deal, raising doubts over whether sovereignty would be restored or merely rebranded.
This is not a conflict of equals. Israel holds overwhelming military superiority, while Palestinians have lost more than 70,000 lives, their towns reduced to rubble, families displaced, and millions forced into makeshift shelters under open skies. According to the United Nations, more than 80 percent of Gaza’s infrastructure has been destroyed or severely damaged, leaving civilians without food, water, or healthcare. To suggest that Palestinians must now “bargain” for the right to survive is sheer injustice. If Trump and the international community truly want peace, they must stop equating oppressor and oppressed, and openly condemn Israel’s indiscriminate bombardments rather than hide behind neutral phrasing.
Even if those hurdles were overcome, legitimacy would remain in question. A foreign-supervised technocratic authority risks being perceived as imposed occupation rather than genuine self-rule. History shows that war-traumatized populations resist externally imposed solutions, even when coupled with aid. If ordinary Gazans feel their voices are ignored, resentment will grow and the risk of renewed insurgency will remain. Regionally, Arab states and wider publics will scrutinize the plan for bias and for sidelining Palestinian aspirations. Weakening the Palestinian Authority while banning Hamas will only deepen the political vacuum rather than resolve it.
History offers lessons. Sweeping frameworks in this conflict rarely succeed. Ceasefires that held, even briefly, were narrow, incremental, and locally negotiated. In 2014 and 2018, Egypt and Qatar brokered truces through limited but practical steps, exchanges of detainees, humanitarian corridors, short pauses for medical evacuations. These did not deliver permanent peace but they saved lives and built some trust. They also demonstrated that when negotiations included civil society, NGOs, and local representatives, not just top leaders, compliance improved.
What Gaza needs now are not grand gestures but concrete, life-saving steps. The first priority should be a verifiable ceasefire lasting several days, to allow the evacuation of the wounded and the delivery of food, medicine, and fuel. Alongside this, limited exchanges of hostages and prisoners, particularly women, the elderly, and the sick, could build goodwill and show that compromise is possible. These small steps would lay the groundwork for wider progress.
Next should come incremental measures. These include dismantling high-risk weapons or tunnels, along with a complete military withdrawal. Most importantly, Palestinians should not be expected to surrender their basic rights. The responsibility lies with Israel, as the occupying power, to end collective punishment and allow life in Gaza to return to normalcy.
Regional diplomacy will be vital. Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and the Gulf states must be engaged to lend legitimacy and guarantees. Pakistan, one of the largest Muslim-majority countries and a consistent supporter of the Palestinian cause, can also play a key role. Through its influence at the United Nations and the OIC, Pakistan can amplify calls for humanitarian relief and Palestinian sovereignty. Inside Gaza, grassroots reconciliation initiatives will be crucial to prevent spoilers from reigniting violence. Transparency is equally essential: regular updates, grievance mechanisms, and community dialogue will help build public trust.
Trump’s plan, despite its flaws, does reopen the conversation about structured peace. But real success will not come from bold press conferences. It will come from incremental, humanitarian steps that prioritize survival over symbolism. Wars rarely end with clean victories; they end when both sides recognize that the cost of continuation outweighs the gains. That moment has surely arrived in Gaza.
If policymakers put aside ego and emotion and act with reason, they will recognize that every day of delay means dozens, if not hundreds, more innocent lives lost. The true measure of success is not who emerges the victor, but whether a child in Gaza can sleep without bombs overhead, whether a family can find food and medicine, and whether hope can begin to replace despair. Comprehensive solutions can wait. Survival cannot.
Leave a Reply