Overview of the Trump-proposed Gaza peace plan
The plan unveiled by U.S. President Donald Trump for Gaza has elicited a broad spectrum of reactions across Israel, the Palestinian territories, and Europe. While some European leaders welcomed the proposal as a potential path to end the war and restore humanitarian access, others urged caution, highlighting that the plan’s terms would need to be implemented with guarantees for civilians and detainees. A central feature discussed by supporters is an eventual international stabilisation presence in Gaza as Israeli forces withdraw from occupied areas, paired with conditions meant to secure long-term security and political normalization in the region.
Netanyahu’s stance and the Washington visit
In a video posted from Washington, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu described the trip as an “excellent” success and argued that Israel had “reversed the situation” by isolating Hamas. He asserted that the U.S. president had pledged strong support to Israel for its military objectives and would ensure that Hamas, if it refuses the plan, does not gain influence in Gaza after any potential withdrawal. In response to questions about the plan including the fate of a Palestinian state, Netanyahu was unequivocal: “Absolutely not, that does not figure in the agreement.” He insisted that his government’s opposition to a Palestinian state remained well understood by Trump and that the plan’s framework would preserve Israel’s core security priorities while keeping Israeli forces largely in Gaza during the transition.
Reactions from Gazans and Palestinian officials
From the Gaza Strip, responses were cautious and divided. Some residents told AFP that the plan offered new prospects but warned that conditions—such as prisoner releases and a lasting ceasefire—must be met with tangible guarantees. Others dismissed the proposal as impractical, noting Hamas’s past refusals to concede essential terms without reciprocal assurances. A Gaza-based worker with the Palestinian Authority expressed disappointment that the plan did not immediately translate into a credible end to the war or a durable political settlement. Across the enclave, people emphasized the urgency of stopping bombardments and restoring humanitarian aid, even as fears about future governance and security persisted.
European support and diplomatic framing
The German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, echoed cautious optimism, meeting with relatives of German hostages held by Hamas to press for their release and calling Trump’s plan “the best chance to end the war since Hamas’s September 7 attacks.” He urged Hamas to approve the framework and to pave the way toward peace, including the unconditional release of all hostages, including German nationals. France joined the chorus of endorsements, with the foreign ministry stating that Paris salutes the plan and stands ready to work toward its implementation in coordination with the United States, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and other partners. The French message stressed the plan as a decisive moment to restore international support for Israel’s security and for a Palestinian path to self-determination.
Other reactions and humanitarian context
Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez also welcomed the plan, urging an immediate end to violence, the swift release of all hostages, and unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza. The UN’s humanitarian chief, Tom Fletcher, commented on X that the plan could open “new possibilities” for delivering aid and advancing practical relief work, while stressing the need for concrete arrangements to translate words into safe corridors and real assistance for civilians caught in the fighting.
What could come next
Analysts note that even as high-level discussions proceed, the on-the-ground realities in Gaza—hostage negotiations, potential ceasefires, and the presence of an international stabilisation force—will shape whether the plan can produce a durable halt to hostilities. For Netanyahu, the insistence on avoiding a Palestinian state remains a non-negotiable political line, potentially constraining the plan’s long-term viability if it fails to address Palestinian aspirations alongside security concerns. For the international community, translating a political framework into immediate relief and long-term governance will require sustained diplomacy, strict verification mechanisms, and credible security guarantees for all sides.
Conclusion
As leaders in Jerusalem, Berlin, Paris, Madrid, and across the United Nations weigh the plan’s potential and its risks, the Gaza crisis enters a new phase where strategic timing, credible guarantees, and palpable humanitarian relief will determine whether this moment becomes a stepping-stone toward peace or another pause in a protracted conflict.
