The Trump-Netanyahu 20-point peace plan without the Palestinians

Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu stood in the Oval Office and unveiled a 20-point plan for peace in the Middle East. Trump called it a serious framework; Netanyahu acclaimed it as historic. Tony Blair was named to a new “board of peace,” with Trump himself as chair. The frustrating thing about this plan is that […]

Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu stood in the Oval Office and unveiled a 20-point plan for peace in the Middle East. Trump called it a serious framework; Netanyahu acclaimed it as historic. Tony Blair was named to a new “board of peace,” with Trump himself as chair.

The frustrating thing about this plan is that it is done without empathy, despite an ongoing genocide. Still, it is good to see Egypt accommodating the two sides in indirect talks, despite the 72-hour deadline pushed by Trump on social media. But this is the same person who promised to end the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours once he returned to office earlier this year.

At first glance, the package looks ambitious. In reality, it is riddled with contradictions and missing guarantees. Most obviously, they chose to exclude Palestinians from the negotiations. To understand the potential difficulty of this effort, it is like having the Good Friday Agreement without the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Or having the amnesty programme without MEND and other militant groups present. Or making a peace talk in Katsina without the bandit kingpins.

Hamas has made a commendable response by accepting some elements of the 20-point framework, as indirect talks progress. Hamas has agreed to parts of Donald Trump’s peace plan, including the release of Israeli hostages, but differences still remain. Hamas is expected to disarm within 72 hours. Trump is pushing for a fast response, with threats of massive bloodshed to follow. Remember, the decommissioning of IRA weapons took years, after a lot of political concessions. Even then, splinter groups resisted.  

From Israel, they have not made any out-of-place concessions at all. Conceding to permit humanitarian aid and refraining from ethnic cleansing are obligations under international law. Netanyahu points to apologies to Qatar, but this does not relate to Palestine. He has already stated there will be “no way there’s going to be a Palestinian state.” That alone undermines the peace plan.

The plan offers no real enforcement. The Good Friday Agreement contained guarantees—if one side failed to act, consequences followed. Here, nothing. What if Hamas releases hostages and Israel refuses to free prisoners? Netanyahu can simply declare Hamas unworthy of trust. Without enforcement, every clause risk collapse.

These may even be incentives for Trump and Netanyahu to see it fail. If Hamas hesitate on the deal, they can strengthen the coalition by claiming Israel offered peace and Palestinians turned it down. By making provocative statements during the negotiation window, they are ensuring rejection while presenting Israel as the reasonable party.

The deeper architecture comes from Tony Blair’s vision of a technocratic administration in Gaza. An international peace council, chaired by Trump and Blair, would supervise. But Gaza is not like Kosovo or East Timor in the 1990s. Israel, a military power controlling every border, sits next door.  

Hamas has also agreed to the proposed plan of an independent technocratic administration. But restoring schools, hospitals, and other services would be extra hard if citizens see them as working for Israel. Palestinians will not accept puppets within their clans.

Providing security is equally contentious. Netanyahu and Trump are proposing an “international stabilisation force.” Arab states to give the troops, train the Palestinian police, and work with Jordan and Egypt. But who removes weapons if Hamas refuses? Who destroys tunnels? Asking Arab soldiers to disarm Palestinians on Israel’s behalf will be politically toxic.

Lessons from Northern Ireland, and Nigeria, show how weak policing arrangements can be. In Gaza, the most politically complicated region in the world, where hostility towards Israel runs even deeper, it will be worse. If a breakaway Hamas faction resists, who will confront them? Would that mean more genocide?

The economic element is equally questionable. A “Trump economic development plan” and a special economic zone are promised. They promise of “miracle cities” like Dubai. But Dubai excels in open trade, capital flows, and global connectivity. Gaza is blockaded. Borders, ports, and airports remain closed. Investors will not risk capital in such a place.

Reconstruction is expected to be funded by the Gulf states, since Israel and the US have no intention of paying. The contrast with post-war Germany is sharp: the Allies who destroyed it also rebuilt it. Israel shows no commitment to rebuilding Gaza. How inhumane and ridiculous can this get? Are they actually targeting peace at all?

The conditions make the plan even weaker. Earlier ceasefire deals tied Israeli withdrawal to hostage releases. Here, they declare that Hamas must free hostages first, without any guarantee. Israel sets no timetable for withdrawal. This kills earlier proposals that seemed to be progressing.

At the heart of the matter lies the fatal flaw: Palestinians were not in the room. They are an after-thought. Peace agreements that endure are built by engaging both sides. To dictate terms to one party is to guarantee rejection. A Hamas source told Reuters the plan was “completely biased towards Israel” and imposed “impossible conditions.” That judgment, whether exaggerated or not, is inevitable when Palestinians are excluded. Thanks to Egypt for accommodating the indirect talks.

It is surprising how such a plan was even presented with applause. A year ago, the world would have dismissed outright the idea of a peace deal without Palestinian involvement. Today, it is treated as a plausible option. International standards have never been this low.

In truth, the plan is nothing more than a political drama. Trump poses as a peacemaker and Netanyahu as a statesman. When, rather than if, Hamas rejects it, Israel can blame them and continue the genocide. The conditions are so demanding and the guarantees so weak that implementation will collapse even if Hamas agrees to everything asked. Either way, Netanyahu comes out on top.

The plan, designed since October 2023, visualises an ideal world without any problems; it fantasises swift disarmament, smooth reconstruction, foreign troops maintaining order, and a revitalised economy. But we do not live in that world. Israel will not cede control. Gaza’s population is traumatised, and many are angry with the ongoing genocide. Reconstruction funds are uncertain. The closest they have to reality is the food deliveries by flotillas, which Israel mostly intercepts.

Let’s recall our own imperfect programme in the Niger Delta. Militants were asked to surrender their arms in return for amnesty and investment opportunities. Even with oil money on the table, the process was fragile, contested, and dependent on constant funding. Boko Haram and bandit terrorism in the North have shown how hard it is to disarm terrorists and rebuild shattered communities. Promises of reconstruction have been undermined by government corruption, poor delivery, and deep mistrust. If a rich state like Nigeria, with oil revenues and sovereignty over its territory, struggles to convert disarmament into peace, how likely is success in Gaza under blockade, without Palestinian consent, and under foreign supervision?

The point here is that nobody can buy peace with promises alone, no matter how imaginary they may be. The unavoidable conclusion is that this is not a peace plan at all. It is only designed to flatter Trump, support the ongoing genocide by Israel and recycle failed formulas.