( Middle East Monitor ) – The Gaza plan unveiled by Donald Trump and reluctantly accepted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been described as bold, controversial, and even theatrical. And indeed, it is all of these things. But it is also something else, perhaps the only available mechanism, however imperfect, to bring a pause to a conflict that has consumed countless lives and devastated Gaza’s infrastructure. For that reason alone, it deserves recognition, even if one cannot fully ignore its flaws or the ambitions that inspired it.
The plan’s central features are already well known. It calls for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the release of all hostages within seventy two hours, a massive prisoner exchange, and, most importantly, the demilitarisation of Gaza. It sets up a “Board of Peace” chaired personally by Trump to oversee humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and governance, while sidelining Hamas and limiting the Palestinian Authority to little more than a symbolic role. Qatar is tasked with mediating Hamas’ reluctant acceptance, promising to use its leverage to secure compliance. In return, Gaza would be promised international support, renewed public services, and billions in reconstruction assistance.
Critics, of course, see this plan less as a peace agreement and more as political theater. Trump is running for history, not just for office, and he seeks to engrave his name as the man who finally silenced Gaza’s guns. Netanyahu, meanwhile, has accepted the deal less out of conviction than out of necessity, compelled by American pressure, regional dynamics, and his own weakening position at home. Even Netanyahu’s apology to Qatar, a remarkable reversal given years of Israeli accusations against Doha, demonstrates how much this plan has been forced upon him.
And yet, even when acknowledging these realities, one cannot entirely dismiss the potential value of this arrangement. For the people of Gaza, families who have endured repeated wars, bombings, and humanitarian collapse, what matters most is not Trump’s political legacy or Netanyahu’s discomfort. What matters is whether food, medicine, electricity, and clean water will finally reach them without interruption. If this plan, however motivated, brings a measure of relief, then it has to be taken seriously.
Still, optimism must be tempered with realism. The plan hinges on the complete demilitarisation of Hamas, something that strikes at the very core of the movement’s identity. To expect Hamas fighters to surrender weapons, abandon resistance, or leave Gaza peacefully may be more of a hope than a practical outcome. Qatar’s influence is significant, but it is not absolute. Resistance movements rarely dissolve simply because a foreign patron tells them to. There is every possibility that underground networks will remain, that weapons will be hidden, and that new groups will emerge even if Hamas’ formal structure is weakened.
There is also the question of governance. An international “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump might sound visionary on paper, but in practice it risks becoming yet another bureaucratic experiment imposed on Palestinians without their genuine participation. The Palestinian Authority, already viewed with skepticism by many Palestinians, would play only a limited, almost cosmetic role. This does not solve the deeper issue of Palestinian sovereignty. At best, it manages the conflict temporarily, deferring the harder questions of political rights, justice, and long-term independence.
And yet, one must not lose sight of the immediate humanitarian stakes. Gaza is in ruins. Hospitals operate with dwindling supplies, children suffer from malnutrition, and basic services have collapsed. If the Trump plan truly opens the gates for humanitarian aid, international funding, and reconstruction projects, then it will deliver something tangible, however fragile. A pause in violence, even one born of political convenience, creates space for families to rebuild their lives, for schools to reopen, and for children to grow up without constant fear.
This is where the world must play its part. Applauding the plan’s ambition is not enough. The international community must monitor its implementation closely, ensuring that aid is not diverted, that reconstruction is genuine, and that both Israel and Hamas, or whatever emerges in Gaza’s political space, are held accountable. Transparency and oversight will be critical, especially given the immense sums of money that will flow into Gaza once the plan takes effect. Without strong supervision, corruption and mismanagement could squander this rare opportunity for relief.
There is also the broader regional context. Arab states, particularly Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan, will need to act not as spectators but as guarantors of the plan’s humanitarian and security components. The United States, under Trump’s personal leadership, will claim credit for brokering peace, but the day to day work of keeping Gaza stable will fall largely on regional actors. This requires genuine coordination and political will, both of which have often been lacking in past attempts at Gaza reconstruction.
File photo: President Donald J. Trump, participates in a bilateral meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Monday, Jan. 27, 2020, in the Oval Office of the White House. (Official White House Photo by D.Myles Cullen). Public Domain. Via Picryl.
The Gaza plan does not resurrect the two-state solution. In fact, it may be seen as its quiet burial, reducing Palestinian aspirations to managed autonomy while strengthening Israel’s control. That is why many analysts remain deeply skeptical, and rightly so. But peace processes are rarely born in ideal conditions. They are often imperfect, lopsided, and full of contradictions. The question is whether they can, despite all this, deliver some measure of relief to those most affected.
Here, the Trump plan might succeed, not in solving the conflict once and for all, but in freezing it long enough to let humanitarian aid flow and to reduce the suffering of ordinary Gazans. That may be a modest achievement in historical terms, but for the people who have lost homes, loved ones, and livelihoods, it is an achievement worth having.
So yes, Trump’s Gaza plan is driven by ambition. Yes, Netanyahu accepted it under pressure. Yes, it is flawed, fragile, and perhaps unsustainable. But it is also a chance, however slim, to interrupt a cycle of violence that has defined Gaza for too long. The world should approach it with caution, with skepticism, and with vigilance. But it should also recognize its potential value. Because in the end, peace is rarely pure. Sometimes, even peace born of ambition can bring relief. And sometimes, that is enough.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment.
Ronny P Sasmita is a Senior Fellow at Indonesia Strategic and Economics Action Institution.
Unless otherwise stated in the article above, this work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved