Trump unveils a 20-point plan for Gaza peace
On Monday evening, U.S. President Donald Trump presented a 20-point plan for Gaza peace, unveiled alongside Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump called the moment a “big day” and a “beautiful day” for the region. He argued that the plan goes beyond Gaza alone and envisions an enduring peace for the Middle East. But as the details emerged, questions quickly surfaced about its inclusivity, feasibility, and durability.
The plan’s framing centered on a diplomatic push that, in Trump’s words, aims for long-term stability rather than a short-term halt to fighting. Yet critics point out that the blueprint appears to sideline the Palestinians, raising concerns about legitimacy and the likelihood that any accord would hold once outside pressure eases.
Early reactions from Norway’s experts: a mixed read
Hilde Henriksen Waage, a historian at the University of Oslo (UiO) and senior researcher at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), cautions against accepting the plan at face value. She described the televised address as “extremely incoherent, messy and lacking substance,” arguing that it still centers on Trump himself. Waage compared the proposal to past colonial-era approaches, suggesting it amounts to a plan for a temporary ceasefire with humanitarian relief rather than a genuine peace agreement negotiated by the parties involved.
Nevertheless, Waage acknowledged a potential concession: Gaza’s civilian population could gain a humanitarian pause and access to aid, creating a window for possible peaceful development—so long as it does not become a means to impose terms on Palestinians without their participation.
Palestinian leadership and the risk of a dictat, not a deal
Dag Henrik Tuastad, a postdoctoral fellow in Middle East studies at UiO, cautions that the most glaring flaw is the exclusion of Palestinian leaders from the process. He argues that Hamas could tactically accept a ceasefire to buy time, but there is little precedent for them dissolving or disarming without direct negotiations and guarantees. “How can Hamas agree to release prisoners when they were never consulted? It reads more like a diktat than a negotiated agreement,” Tuastad told Dagbladet.
Tuastad does acknowledge a potential upside: some movement is better than continued stalemate, and U.S. involvement could put pressure on Israel to avoid a potential humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Still, he views the proposal through a historical lens, likening it to a modern form of external stewardship or protectorate, which he says has appeared in the region for more than a century.
Israel’s stance, public opinion, and strategic stakes
The Norwegian scholar notes that Israel’s political climate could be delicate. With roughly seven in ten Israelis reportedly desiring an end to the fighting, the plan may appear attractive on the surface. Yet Tuastad warns that any acceptance might trigger internal political turmoil, especially if leaders are seen as compromising too soon or without broad consensus. Hamas remains unfazed by the status of talks: the group has consistently asserted that any enduring settlement must involve a broader reconciliation with Palestinian factions and recognition of Palestinian rights.
Norway’s view: a cautious endorsement and conditions for legitimacy
Espen Barth Eide, Norway’s foreign minister, issued a measured welcome, describing the development as an important first step but stressing that “much remains.” He emphasised that the parties must seize the opportunity to end the war and noted alignment with Norway’s ongoing diplomacy. Eide reiterated that any peace model bypassing the Palestinian people’s participation and rights would lack legitimacy and stability. He reaffirmed Norway’s belief that, even if hostilities cease, only a two-state solution can guarantee lasting peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Looking ahead: the two-state solution as the enduring framework
As discussions continue, the central question remains whether a plan drafted without Palestinian input can transform into a durable settlement. Several observers argue that true progress will require inclusive negotiations, binding enforcement mechanisms, and a path toward a two-state solution that respects Palestinian sovereignty and Israeli security. The new plan’s reception in capitals around the world will hinge on whether it evolves from a unilateral blueprint into a negotiated agreement with real implementation benchmarks, international backing, and accountable guarantees.
In Oslo’s view, and in the assessment of many regional observers, movement toward peace is possible only if the parties sit at the table as equals and commit to a future where two states coexist with recognized rights, security guarantees, and durable humanitarian protection for civilians. Until then, the plan will be debated as much for what it omits as for what it proposes.
