Trump Gaza Peace Plan Unveiled: A Bold Move or a Contested Blueprint?
On Monday evening, US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced a 20-point plan for Gaza. Trump called the moment a “big day” and a “beautiful day,” while presenting a blueprint that he said could extend far beyond Gaza to seek an enduring settlement in the Middle East.
The plan’s framing as a route to what was described as “+eternal peace+” in the region set a high bar. Yet experts warn that the document raises as many questions as it answers, especially about who is at the table and how the terms would be enforced on the ground.
What the Plan Seeks to Do
Officials described the plan as addressing hostages, humanitarian aid, and a pause in fighting in Gaza while advancing a broader political framework. The emphasis, according to supporters, is to create space for humanitarian relief and a possible shift toward a political process. Critics, however, say the plan appears to push for a temporary halt rather than a negotiated peace, with Palestinian voices largely absent from the initial framing.
Critical voices: A troubling echo from the past
Hilde Henriksen Waage, a history professor at the University of Oslo, characterized the presentation as “incoherent, messy, and lacking substance,” suggesting the speech largely centers on Trump himself. She warned that the proposal resembles a distant echo of colonial-era approaches and cautioned that it could amount to a temporary truce rather than a lasting peace, imposed from outside and delivered with threats if Palestinians refuse to agree. Nevertheless, Waage acknowledged a potential humanitarian pause and aid as positive byproducts if the plan translates into real relief on the ground.
Hamas and the political calculus
Dag Henrik Tuastad, a middeast studies scholar at UiO, argued that a critical flaw is the absence of Palestinian leadership in the process. He noted that Hamas might accept a ceasefire for tactical breathing space, but relinquishing weapons or dissolving the organization is not something it has fought for. The plan, he said, reads more like a dictate than a negotiated agreement and lacks mechanisms for meaningful bargaining between two parties with diverging goals. Still, Tuastad conceded that action is needed and welcomed the U.S. involvement and Israeli pressure to curb potential civilian harm in Gaza.
A potential risk of external governance
Tuastad warned against a perception of a protectorate-like arrangement, where external actors steer events without full consent from all parties. He asked why Israel would accept the framework and noted that public opinion in Israel, while largely pressing for an end to the conflict, could lead to internal political instability if the plan falters or fails to deliver clear gains. He also pointed out that Hamas has not been decisively defeated, and the broader strategic objectives may remain unmet if the plan collapses.
Norway’s Response and the Path Forward
Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide welcomed the development as an important first step but stressed that much remains to be done. In a statement to Dagbladet, he urged the parties to seize the moment to end the war and highlighted that several elements of the plan align with ongoing international discussions, including Norway’s recent diplomatic engagements during the UN General Assembly. Eide underscored that any solution bypassing Palestinian participation and rights will lack legitimacy and stability.
Norway emphasizes the necessity of Palestinian inclusion and a sustainable political process. Eide warned against a return to pre-October 7, 2023 circumstances, arguing that lasting peace requires more than a temporary halt to fighting. He reiterated that the only path to durable security for both Israelis and Palestinians lies in a genuine two-state solution, built on mutual recognition, secure borders, and coherent governance.
Conclusion: A Step Forward or a Step Aside?
The Gaza war remains a crisis with deep regional and global implications. Trump’s 20-point plan, presented with Netanyahu, catalyzes debate about leadership, legitimacy, and effective pathways to peace. While some see a meaningful entrance ramp for humanitarian relief and renewed dialogue, others warn that without inclusive negotiations, verifiable guarantees, and a credible mechanism to implement a two-state solution, the plan may fade into another transitional arrangement rather than a durable settlement. In the coming weeks, the international community will watch how the proposed framework translates into ground realities and whether key Palestinian voices finally gain a seat at the table.
