US President Donald Trump’s ceasefire plan for Gaza may prove to be a pivotal juncture after nearly two years of relentless war. On paper, it offers Palestinians a respite from Israel’s devastating bombardment that has killed more than 65,000 civilians and injured over 165,000, while also laying out a long-term vision for governance in Gaza and the occupied territories. But beyond short-term relief, the plan raises more questions than it answers.
For the people of Gaza, the immediate concern is survival. A ceasefire and resumption of humanitarian aid remain their most urgent priorities, not abstract frameworks of governance. Yet, even after Prime Minister Netanyahu’s conditional agreement to the plan, Israel’s bombardment continued, with warnings for civilians in Gaza City to flee south. Without concrete limits on Israel’s military activity, the proposal risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive.
The framework envisions disarming Hamas, establishing a multinational stabilization force alongside Israeli military oversight, and creating a technocratic Palestinian administration under the supervision of a “Board of Peace” led by Trump and Tony Blair. This ambitious vision, however, lacks clarity on enforcement and fails to hold Israel accountable for civilian casualties. For Palestinians, it appears as a lopsided arrangement where demands are imposed on them while Israel retains veto power.
Read More: Pakistan, UAE Agree to Boost Rail Modernisation and Connectivity
Diplomatically, the plan reflects global pressure. On the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, the US sought support from Muslim-majority states, especially Qatar, Turkey, and Pakistan, to push Hamas toward compliance. Yet, Muslim countries find themselves in uncharted territory — pressured to secure a ceasefire but wary of legitimising Israel’s occupation. Qatar has openly stated that the White House modified the plan without consultation, exposing rifts among stakeholders.
The politics of next steps remain fraught. For Israel, the plan gives Netanyahu flexibility to claim victory while retaining military leverage. For Hamas, it is a defining moment: accept external pressure and risk losing its political identity, or resist and risk further isolation. For Muslim leaders, agreeing to security coordination with Israel could invite domestic backlash and complicate regional diplomacy.
The Gulf states may contribute funds for reconstruction but will avoid direct security roles. This makes sustainable implementation unlikely, as peacebuilding requires both political ownership by Palestinians and long-term commitment by all parties — elements missing from Trump’s proposal.
Ultimately, while the plan may secure a fragile, temporary ceasefire, it does not address the core realities of occupation, accountability, and Palestinian self-determination. Without these, it risks becoming just another fleeting diplomatic exercise — a pause before the next round of devastation.