Executive Summary
The Story So Far
Why This Matters
Who Thinks What?
President Donald Trump recently unveiled a 20-point proposal aimed at resolving the ongoing conflict in Gaza, expressing strong optimism for a breakthrough in Middle East peace. The plan, announced following a meeting with Israeli Prime Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on September 29, 2025, was touted by Trump as a unique opportunity for “GREATNESS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.” However, skepticism immediately emerged regarding its viability, with key parties casting doubt on its core tenets and historical precedents suggesting a challenging path forward.
Trump’s Gaza Proposal
The comprehensive plan, as described by Trump, includes provisions for ending the war in Gaza, facilitating an exchange of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, establishing an internationally supervised administration for the enclave, and arranging a partial withdrawal of Israeli forces. It also vaguely mentions the eventual establishment of “a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel, with secure, recognized borders.”
Immediate Backlash and Political Hurdles
Despite President Trump’s assertion of widespread support, the proposal faced immediate challenges. Hours after his White House meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly denied agreeing to the establishment of a Palestinian state, stating unequivocally that it was not part of the agreement. This stance was echoed by far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a coalition partner, who criticized Netanyahu’s acceptance as a “resounding diplomatic failure” and a “betrayal of all the lessons of the October 7 attack.”
Further complicating its implementation, Hamas has yet to agree to the plan, and Israel has not officially accepted it, despite Netanyahu’s public appearance alongside Trump. Political observers suggest that promises made in Washington may be difficult for Netanyahu to uphold within the complex landscape of Israeli domestic politics.
Historical Context of Peace Efforts
The current proposal follows a long history of ambitious American-led peace initiatives in the Middle East that ultimately failed to achieve their stated goals. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan’s “fresh start” plan called for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Lebanon, a freeze on Israeli settlements, and Palestinian self-government, none of which materialized. Similarly, the 1993 Oslo Accords, signed by Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin under President Bill Clinton, aimed to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict but did not deliver lasting peace.
Overlooking the West Bank
A significant point of criticism in the analysis is the plan’s apparent omission of the broader Israeli occupation and settlement expansion in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. While Trump stated on September 25 that Israel would not annex the West Bank, the latest proposal reportedly contains little mention of this territory. Critics argue that these issues are fundamental drivers of the conflict.
Successive U.S. administrations have historically refrained from pressing Israel to halt or reverse its settlement expansion, which has seen the settler population in the West Bank and East Jerusalem grow significantly. Despite Trump’s vow against formal annexation, Israel maintains effective control over the territory, operating a two-tier legal system and dictating movement, which analysts contend amounts to a de facto takeover.
Outlook for Peace
While President Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza holds the potential to bring an end to the immediate conflict, signal the demise of Hamas, enable reconstruction in Gaza, and facilitate the return of Israeli hostages, its ambitious goals face considerable obstacles. Given the immediate rejections from key political figures, the lack of official agreement from Hamas and Israel, and the historical context of failed peace efforts, the prospect of achieving lasting “greatness in the Middle East” remains highly uncertain. A more cautious hope, as suggested by analysts, might be for a temporary pause in the violence in Gaza.
