The White House has unveiled a document many are calling the boldest attempt yet to break the cycle of the Arab–Israeli conflict. The “Comprehensive Plan for Ending the Gaza Conflict” is the product of months of quiet back-channel talks, tense consultations, and diplomatic maneuvering. But more than that, it reflects the world’s exhaustion with endless bloodshed, the grim equilibrium of violence where every victim becomes the pretext for another strike.
Trump’s plan isn’t a vague wish list. It’s a tightly drawn roadmap, more like a surgeon’s protocol for saving a failing body. Gaza today is rubble and ash—seventy percent of its housing stock destroyed, millions without power or clean water, an economy burned to the ground. And yet, in this wasteland, Washington is trying to sketch the outline of a future, resting on three pillars.
Pillar One: Deradicalization and Demilitarization
The plan calls for the complete dismantling of Hamas’s military infrastructure and all armed groups, the disarmament of fighters, amnesty for those who voluntarily surrender, and safe passage for militants leaving the enclave. The authors see this not just as a military measure but as a symbolic reset—a declaration that violence will no longer be the only language of the region.
Pillar Two: Transitional Technocratic Governance
For Gaza’s day-to-day survival, the plan proposes a temporary, apolitical committee tasked with handling municipal, social, and basic civic functions. Think of it as a government of specialists, charged with turning survival into something closer to normal life. Oversight would fall to a new “Peace Council” chaired by U.S. President Donald Trump, with seats for European and Arab representatives, including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The idea is to dilute the dominance of any single side and create shared accountability for Gaza’s fate.
Pillar Three: Regional Guarantees and International Oversight
To enforce stability, the plan envisions the deployment of International Stabilization Forces (ISF). Their mandate: train Palestinian police, keep order, and prevent chaos from reemerging during the transition. These forces would serve as a shield, allowing Gaza’s residents to breathe without fear for the first time in decades—and to begin imagining a future.
Taken together, the plan blends military, administrative, and international elements. It’s a bridge built on three arches—security, governance, and guarantees. Alone, each would buckle. Together, they might just bear the weight of Gaza’s shattered reality and carry it toward something new.
But the plan raises hard questions. Do the parties have the political will? Will the region accept the role of guarantor? Can fragile trust survive the pressure of the streets and the pull of revenge? Trump’s proposal isn’t just a plan to stop the war. It’s an audacious attempt to rewrite the story of the conflict, to break the curse of blood and reprisal, and to create a shot at a new beginning.
The Humanitarian and Economic Blueprint
Trump has emphasized that Gaza’s recovery must be driven by investment, not by traditional aid structures like the U.N. or the Red Crescent, which his administration dismisses as ineffective. Instead, the plan calls for a special economic zone with reduced tariffs and tax breaks. By the administration’s estimates, at least $10 billion would flow into Gaza within three years—half from Gulf states.
Humanitarian relief would arrive “in full,” restoring electricity, water, sewage, and medical facilities. Within weeks of a deal, five thousand mobile homes and field hospitals would be set up. Crucially, control of resources would lie not with local armed factions but with the ISF and the interim committee.
The White House is pitching a new model: not just the delivery of aid, but the creation of a managed infrastructure system where every gallon of fuel, every ton of cement, and every shipment of medicine is logged and monitored. It’s a vision of order imposed on chaos—an experiment in rebuilding from scratch under international supervision.
Political and Legal Dimensions
One of the most striking passages in the plan is Section 19, which touches on Palestinian self-determination. The U.S. acknowledges the aspiration for statehood but defers recognition of an independent Palestine until “conditions are created.” In practice, this means the White House is trying to strike a balance between Arab governments demanding a two-state solution and Israel’s firm rejection of any immediate recognition of Palestinian sovereignty.
The document also guarantees that Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza, and rules out forced displacement of its residents. This clause is critical. Fear of a new “Nakba”—another mass exodus of Palestinians—was one of the driving forces behind the furious reaction across the Arab world to Israel’s early military operations in 2023–2024.
The legal snag lies in the fact that Trump’s plan isn’t tied directly to U.N. Security Council resolutions, even though it leans on the principles of international law. That gives Washington flexibility, but also makes the plan’s enforcement entirely dependent on the voluntary consent of the parties involved.
Israel’s Response: Between Military Logic and Political Pressure
Israel’s reaction has been mixed. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, standing in Washington, said he “sees in the U.S. president’s initiative a basis for serious dialogue.” But within Israel’s political arena, the split was immediate.
According to the daily Maariv, the security cabinet is divided. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and his camp lean toward backing the plan, arguing that the Gaza campaign had reached a dead end: mounting casualties and international pressure had made it increasingly costly to sustain. By contrast, far-right parties like Religious Zionism and Otzma Yehudit slammed the proposal as “capitulation to terrorism.”
Public opinion is equally fractured. A September 2025 poll by the Israel Democracy Institute found that 52 percent of Israelis would support a deal trading hostages for an end to the military operation, though just 28 percent favor releasing 250 prisoners serving life terms. Meanwhile, 60 percent back the idea of international stabilization forces—so long as they include U.S. and European troops, not just Arab contingents.
For Netanyahu, the dilemma is stark: on one side, his heavy reliance on Trump, who unlike his predecessor has become Israel’s most crucial political and military ally; on the other, pressure from his right-wing coalition partners whose support he cannot govern without.
The Palestinian View: Between Hope and Skepticism
On the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority responded with cautious approval. Mahmoud Abbas, whose clout has eroded since 2023, sees the plan as a chance to reclaim relevance. Fatah representatives said they support “transitional technocratic governance,” provided it is a step toward building a unified Palestinian state.
In Gaza, the reaction was sharper. Hamas leaders conceded they would have no formal place in the new arrangement, but as retired IDF officer Ofer Shelah told Israeli media, “Hamas always thinks in the long game” and could try to claw its way back within five to ten years. Israeli intelligence estimates that, as of late September 2025, Hamas still has between 10,000 and 20,000 fighters, some of whom have already infiltrated humanitarian zones.
This makes disarmament and amnesty the most fragile part of the plan. The precedent is sobering: even after the harshest Israeli campaigns, Hamas managed to rebuild its arsenal within two to three years.
Arab States: Cautious Endorsement
Regional reaction is pivotal. A joint statement by the foreign ministers of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Jordan, the UAE, Pakistan, and Indonesia marked a first—such a broad bloc backing a U.S. initiative.
The declaration stressed three red lines: a full withdrawal of Israeli troops, no forced displacement of Palestinians, and uninterrupted humanitarian access. Perhaps most importantly, the statement locked in support for a two-state solution—a principle particularly vital for Turkey and Saudi Arabia, both of which have stepped up pressure on Israel in recent months.
The economic calculus is equally clear. Taking part in Gaza’s reconstruction offers Arab governments both political capital and access to multibillion-dollar projects. According to Bloomberg Middle East (September 2025), the UAE and Qatar have already lined up roughly $3 billion in investment packages for infrastructure projects.
The Humanitarian Reality: Gaza, Fall 2025
The viability of Trump’s plan can only be judged against the grim baseline of today’s Gaza.
- According to the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, by September 2025 the death toll had topped 38,000—roughly 40 percent of them children.
- More than 2 million residents have no reliable access to clean drinking water.
- Seventy-five percent of schools and universities are either destroyed or damaged.
- Electricity is available for only three to four hours a day.
- Economic activity has collapsed by 85 percent compared to 2022 levels.
These numbers make one thing clear: without sweeping international intervention, recovery is impossible. What sets Trump’s plan apart is its linkage of humanitarian relief to political benchmarks—amnesty, disarmament, international oversight. Neither the 2020 “deal of the century” nor earlier initiatives ventured that far. This is new territory, and for better or worse, it raises the stakes for everyone involved.
The International Dimension
Trump’s plan has drawn both interest and criticism well beyond the Middle East. The European Union, through Josep Borrell, welcomed the idea of international stabilization forces but bristled at the exclusion of the U.N. The U.K., by contrast, signaled it is ready to take part in the proposed “Peace Council” and has already floated Tony Blair’s name as a possible representative.
Russia and Iran came out swinging. Moscow blasted the plan as one that “ignores U.N. Security Council resolutions and international legal norms,” while Tehran dismissed it as “an attempt to cement American dominance in the region.”
For Azerbaijan, the plan resonates on a different level. It reflects a principle Baku has long championed in its own diplomacy—the need to link security, humanitarian aid, and development as part of one package. That same comprehensive logic has guided Azerbaijan’s energy and infrastructure projects across the South Caucasus.
Implementation: Three Possible Scenarios
The Trump plan reads like a detailed roadmap, but its success hinges on moving parts. Analysts point to three scenarios.
- The Optimistic Scenario
Israel and the Palestinians sign on to the core terms, Hamas gives up a large portion of its weapons, and Arab states step in as guarantors. In this case, Gaza could see large-scale reconstruction begin by the end of 2026, with stabilization forces embedded as a permanent feature of the regional order. The World Bank projects that under such conditions, Gaza’s GDP could grow 15–20 percent annually, slowly easing unemployment. - The Realistic Scenario
Partial implementation: hostages are released, Israeli troops pull out, but Hamas keeps underground networks and influence intact. Gaza would receive humanitarian aid, but security would remain volatile. Stabilization forces could find themselves drawn into constant skirmishes with militants—a replay of Lebanon after 2006, when Hezbollah yielded on paper but preserved its military muscle. - The Negative Scenario
Hamas rejects the terms outright, Israel walks away from negotiations, and Arab states confine themselves to statements. Fighting resumes, this time under the shadow of international expectations that peace was within reach. Israel would face even harsher diplomatic blowback, and Trump would risk seeing the signature foreign-policy initiative of his second term collapse.
What It Means for Israel
For Israel, Trump’s plan offers a way out without the optics of surrender. It creates a pathway to free hostages, withdraw forces, and hand off responsibility for Gaza’s governance to international overseers.
But the Israeli right sees danger. Any withdrawal without Hamas’s total destruction will be painted as defeat. That could fracture Netanyahu’s coalition and push the country toward early elections.
In the long run, Israel benefits only if international forces can actually keep Gaza under control. If Hamas resurfaces in a few years, today’s concessions will be judged intolerable by Israeli society.
What It Means for the Palestinians
For Palestinians, the plan opens two diverging tracks.
The first is constructive: rebuilding infrastructure, moving gradually toward statehood. Even without formal recognition in the near term, restoring Gaza and integrating it with the West Bank could lay the groundwork for a unified political entity.
The second is destabilizing: internal division. Hamas won’t vanish and will try to undermine any interim administration. That could trap Palestinian society in a constant tug-of-war—technocrats on one side, underground radicals on the other.
The Role of Arab States
For the first time in years, Arab governments aren’t just spectators to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict; they’re being asked to serve as guarantors of peace. Saudi Arabia and Egypt, wary of how Gaza’s instability fuels their own internal security pressures, see stabilization as a matter of national interest.
Turkey views the plan as a chance to flex its diplomatic muscle, pressing to play a leading role in training Palestinian security forces. For Qatar, it’s an opportunity to cement its reputation as a mediator. For the UAE, it’s about translating political leverage into concrete infrastructure projects that promise both financial returns and regional influence.
The Global Context
The wider world has responded with pragmatism.
- The EU is ready to participate but insists the U.N. must remain in the mix.
- Russia and Iran, convinced the plan strengthens U.S. dominance, are preparing to obstruct it.
- China is hedging: offering investment in Gaza’s reconstruction but steering clear of direct security involvement.
For Washington, success would mark the crowning foreign-policy achievement of Trump’s second term. Failure would further erode U.S. credibility as a broker in the Middle East.
The Road Ahead
In the coming months, hostages will be the litmus test. If they are freed within 72 hours of a deal, the move could build trust and open the door for humanitarian shipments. If Hamas drags its feet, Israel will seize on that as justification to restart military operations. Analysts widely agree: the first weeks of implementation will make or break the plan.
From Azerbaijan’s perspective, the proposal is striking because it mirrors Baku’s philosophy of conflict resolution—security, humanitarian relief, and economics woven into a single framework. And because it draws in regional stakeholders rather than relying solely on the West, it stands a better chance of taking root.
More Than Just Paper
Trump’s Gaza plan is not another glossy document stamped by the White House. It’s an attempt to rip the fabric of the Middle East conflict out of its rusted frame and stitch it anew. Where the U.N. has long played the notary of broken promises, Washington is pitching Gaza as a test lab for a harder-edged, more pragmatic peace—one where every ton of cement and every megawatt of electricity is tied to a reordering of political power.
The risks are enormous. Hamas won’t vanish like chalk erased from a board. Israel’s politics could collapse under the weight of its far-right flank. Arab capitals could tire of endless donor fatigue. Yet history has shown that at times, sheer audacity can push change forward.
If even half this plan takes hold, Gaza could shift from being a graveyard of hope into a symbol that even the darkest corners of the world can be rebuilt—not through war and blockade, but through deals and compromises, however tightly supervised.
That’s the gamble. For the first time in decades, the Middle East might have a chance to break the vicious cycle of “war–truce–war.” Trump’s twenty-point plan isn’t a guarantee, but it’s a door cracked open by eight regional powers. The only question is whether the world will walk through—or slam it shut and leave Gaza once again in the dark, a monument to despair.
History loves its paradoxes. Perhaps in Gaza’s ruins lies the blueprint for a new model of international conflict resolution. The challenge is whether the world has the courage to see it through.