Unveiling a 20-Point Gaza Plan
On Monday evening, US President Donald Trump presented a 20-point plan for Gaza in a joint briefing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Described by Trump as a historic path toward “eternal peace” in the Middle East, the plan extends beyond Gaza and is framed as a comprehensive approach to conflict reduction in the region. According to the presentation, the package aims to secure a ceasefire, unlock humanitarian aid, and pressure all parties toward a lasting settlement. Critics, however, stress that the blueprint arrives without Palestinian leadership representation at the table and with the possibility of consequences if terms are not accepted.
What the Plan Seeks to Accomplish
Supporters say the plan intends to establish a framework for humanitarian relief, a pause in hostilities, and mechanisms to safeguard civilians in Gaza. The emphasis on hostage release, aid corridors, and protection of minority communities is seen as a pragmatic starting point for de-escalation. Yet multiple observers cautioned that presenting a 20-point outline as a definitive peace accord risks conflating an immediate pause with a durable political settlement.
Reactions from Oslo: Skepticism and Caution
Two prominent Norwegian scholars offered sober assessments of Trump’s Gaza initiative. Hilde Henriksen Waage, a history professor at the University of Oslo and senior researcher at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), described the speech as “extremely inconsistent, messy and lacking substance.” She argued that the presentation largely serves personal branding and that, at its core, the plan resembles a forced pause rather than a negotiated peace. “This is like a ghost from the past, from colonial times. There is no genuine peace plan; there is a plan for a temporary ceasefire, to recover hostages and deliver humanitarian aid,” Waage said, adding that the proposal appears imposed rather than co-authored with Palestinian voices. Still, she acknowledged a potential positive implication: a humanitarian pause and a possible direction toward peaceful development if conditions evolve.
Dag Henrik Tuastad, a professor of Middle East studies at the University of Oslo, highlighted a central flaw: Palestinian leaders were not included in the process. He warned that Hamas could accept a ceasefire as a tactical respite without binding itself to long-term disarmament and political compromise. “This reads more like a diktat than a treaty, and not the result of negotiations between two parties,” Tuastad told Dagbladet. Nonetheless, he conceded that some momentum could emerge from U.S. engagement and increased international pressure on Israel to halt a possible humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.
Israel’s Position and the Domestic Equation
Analysts note that Israel’s response is shaped by domestic public opinion as much as by international diplomacy. Tuastad cited polls suggesting around 70 percent of Israelis favored ending the war, which could translate into political pressure to accept terms that restore regional stability. Yet he warned that an agreed framework could provoke a political crisis if citizens feel the outcome falls short of achieving core objectives, such as dismantling militant networks or ending violence permanently. “Hamas has not been defeated, the tunnel network remains,” he said, underscoring the gap between ending combat and achieving strategic goals.
Norway’s Diplomatic Stance
Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide welcomed the development as an important first step while stressing that much work remains. In a statement to Dagbladet, Eide underscored the need for Palestinian participation and rights in any sustainable solution. He emphasized that Norway supports models that do not sideline Palestinians and that any approach bypassing Palestinian agency risks undermining legitimacy and stability. “Only a two-state solution can secure peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians,” Eide asserted, signaling Norway’s commitment to a balanced, inclusive framework in line with long-standing Oslo principles.
The Road Ahead: From a Pause to a Durable Peace
Experts agree that while a humanitarian pause is valuable, a durable peace requires genuine negotiations that address core issues, including governance, security guarantees, and refugee rights. The plan’s current form invites vigorous debate about inclusivity, enforceability, and long-term vision. If any path forward is to gain credibility, it must actively involve Palestinian leadership, ensure civilian protection, and anchor a realistic, time-bound process toward a two-state solution. The coming weeks will reveal whether the United States and its partners can translate a moment of attention into a substantive, lasting settlement that transcends unilateral dictats and delivers tangible security for both Israelis and Palestinians.
