Global reactions mix cautious optimism with grave skepticism
Donald Trump’s 20-point plan to end the war in Gaza quickly drew a spectrum of reactions across the Middle East and Europe. While many leaders welcomed the proposal in principle—praising a ceasefire, hostage-prisoner exchanges, a staged Israeli withdrawal, Hamas disarmament, and a transitional government led by an international body—analysts and residents in Gaza warned that the deal hinges on a group not directly at the table and on guarantees that have previously been elusive.
The plan, unveiled by Trump alongside Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, seeks an immediate ceasefire, a staged Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and a pathway to disarm Hamas through a transitional authority overseen by an international “Board of Peace.” That board would be responsible for reform and for guiding the process toward a two-state framework, according to its outlined terms.
Support from regional and Western partners
Key allies and regional players, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt, signaled a willingness to cooperate with Washington to implement the plan. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer urged Hamas to accept the plan and “end the misery,” while French President Emmanuel Macron argued that Hamas had little option but to follow the proposal. Veteran observers of U.S. diplomacy noted that the plan’s broad backing could put pressure on Hamas from multiple directions.
Several longtime diplomacy hands added that the adaptability of the plan would depend on the details still to be worked out and on consensus among Arab and Islamic states that a united front can translate into real leverage with Hamas.
What the plan asks for—and why supporters see potential
The proposal is explicit about several pillars: immediately ceasefire; a hostage exchange in which Hamas detainees would be swapped for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli custody; a staged Israeli withdrawal from Gaza; Hamas disarmament; and the formation of a transitional government led by an international body to oversee Gaza until reforms are enacted. The “Board of Peace” would be chaired by Donald Trump and would supervise the transition until a wider, durable agreement can be achieved. Palestinian authorities in the West Bank signaled openness to a comprehensive deal that channels toward two-state peace, even as they insisted on clear guarantees.
Speaking to supporters and international audiences, pro-peace advocates argued that the plan merits serious consideration because it reframes the dispute within an international framework and creates a mechanism to monitor reform and security commitments. Some in the U.S. and allied capitals described the package as a credible framework that could concentrate pressure on Hamas if backed by a broad coalition.
Gaza and Palestinian voices: a mix of caution and hope
In Gaza City and southern Gaza, ordinary residents offered tempered judgments. Ibrahim Joudeh, a resident in southern Gaza, told AFP that the plan appears “unrealistic” and structured with conditions Hamas will not accept, predicting ongoing suffering unless major concessions shift the balance. Abu Mazen Nassar described the proposal as manipulation, asking what official guarantees would accompany prisoner releases and end to the fighting. “Hamas has lost us and drowned us in the flood it created,” he said.
Some Gazans clung to hope. Anas Sorour, a 31-year-old street vendor, told AFP that “despite everything we’ve lived through and lost in this war … I still have hope.” Yet others warned that two years of failed ceasefires have left people cynical about promised breakthroughs.
Israelis’ cautious optimism and the ground reality
On the Israeli side, optimism was tempered by fear of renewed disappointment. In Tel Aviv, protests calling for an end to the war and hostages’ return continued, but some residents voiced relief that a substantive proposal might steer the conflict toward resolution. Inbar Hayman, an Israeli observer, said she was hopeful but worried about being disappointed again. Gal Goren, whose parents were killed in the Hamas-led attacks, welcomed Trump’s recognition of the pain and the need to bring hostages home.
Bar of scrutiny: what comes next
Diplomatic veterans warned that the plan’s success rests on Hamas’s acceptance and on real, enforceable guarantees that have eluded past negotiations. Dan Shapiro, former U.S. ambassador to Israel, called the plan “credible” but stressed that the next step is to win Hamas alignment—likely requiring coordinated pressure from regional players such as Qatar and Turkey. Brett McGurk, a former White House adviser, emphasized that international pressure must now target Hamas to unlock the strategy’s potential.
Reflecting on the plan’s international dimension, Mustafa Barghouti of the Palestinian National Initiative criticized the board composition, noting: “We’ve been under British colonialism already,” a response echoed by others wary of external governance roles. Tony Blair’s presence on the Board of Peace drew sharp reactions among some Palestinians who recalled historical grievances. In the meantime, the plan’s fate will hinge on whether Hamas agrees and whether the international community can sustain pressure while guaranteeing security and political reforms.
Bottom line
Trump’s 20-point plan has sparked a rare moment of cross-regional openness to a negotiated settlement, but for Gaza’s people, the test remains whether a credible, enforceable path exists to end the war—and whether any agreement can deliver real, lasting peace rather than another cycle of expectations and disappointment.
