Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump
By Alpha Amadu Jalloh
While the world watches, the U.S. sidelines the United Nations, Arab states remain divided, Israel evades accountability, and Palestinians are left dreaming of a state they have long been denied.
Donald Trump’s recent peace plan for Gaza has once again brought global attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On the surface, it appears to offer concessions long sought by Palestinians: the right for Gazans to remain on their land, the potential for return of those who have left, and a conditional pathway to statehood. Yet, a closer reading exposes profound flaws, misreadings of history, and a troubling usurpation of international diplomacy that risks misleading the world and perpetuating Palestinian suffering.
The plan proposes that the Palestinian Authority PA take over governance of Gaza, conditional on unspecified “reforms.” Hamas would be expected to disarm, with amnesty granted only to members agreeing to “peaceful coexistence” with Israel. Israeli forces would withdraw in favor of an international stabilization force, later replaced by a Palestinian police force. Ultimately, the plan promises a pathway to Palestinian independence.
At first glance, these provisions may seem promising. But they collide with political realities. Israel has publicly stated its non-negotiable red lines. Hamas must be destroyed, the PA cannot govern Gaza, Israel must retain security control, and a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River is non-negotiable. In other words, the plan’s guarantees to Palestinians are contradicted by Israel’s own stance, a disconnect that renders much of the plan illusory.
The United States’ unilateral approach to this plan underscores a deeper problem, the undermining of the United Nations, the body traditionally tasked with coordinating international efforts for peace in the Middle East. Since 1947, the UN has passed numerous resolutions affirming Palestinian rights and calling for a two-state solution, yet the Trump plan effectively sidelines these multilateral frameworks. In doing so, Washington has positioned itself not as a neutral mediator but as a political player, imposing its vision while ignoring the collective authority and legitimacy of the United Nations. This sets a dangerous precedent for global diplomacy, eroding confidence in institutions that have historically served as impartial arbiters in conflicts worldwide.
The Arab states, and particularly the Arab League, have historically been central to efforts to advance Palestinian rights. Yet, their role in this process has been inconsistent and often hypocritical. The League’s statements frequently express solidarity with Palestinians, but behind the scenes, divisions along sectarian lines, Sunni versus Shia, Gulf rivalries, and competing national interests, have hampered unified action. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt have pursued their own geopolitical agendas, at times normalizing relations with Israel without meaningful concessions for Palestinians. This hypocrisy creates an illusion of support for Palestinian aspirations while simultaneously constraining genuine regional solutions.
The entanglement of Sunni-Shia rivalries is particularly pernicious. In a region where historical, religious, and political fault lines shape alliances, Arab states’ divisions impede a coherent response to the Israeli occupation and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Palestinians have been left to dream of peace since 1948, yet the fractured Arab world has consistently failed to translate rhetoric into enforceable action.
A critical, often overlooked factor in the region’s instability is Israel’s role in the creation and rise of Hamas. During the 1970s and 1980s, Israel’s military and political strategy sought to weaken the secular Palestine Liberation Organization PLO by supporting the emergence of Islamist groups as counterweights in Gaza. This policy inadvertently entrenched Hamas, which today remains a central force in Gaza, complicating peace negotiations. Any plan that ignores this historical context and the origins of Hamas risks oversimplifying the challenges on the ground and misdiagnosing the roots of conflict.
| “Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means.”
Nelson Mandela
International double standards further exacerbate the crisis. The European Union, for example, champions human rights rhetorically but has frequently failed to hold Israel accountable for settlement expansions or Gaza blockades. Similarly, Russia, China, and India have largely remained silent or pursued transactional relationships, often prioritizing trade, arms deals, or energy security over principled intervention in Palestinian rights. These inconsistencies embolden Israel while disempowering Palestinians, reinforcing the structural inequities that have defined the conflict for generations.
History teaches painful lessons. The Palestinian Authority has been limited in authority, governing only parts of the West Bank, while Gaza remains under Hamas. Previous international interventions, from Tony Blair to the so-called Quartet, have repeatedly failed. In 2012, the PA dismissed Blair’s efforts as “useless, useless, useless,” urging him to “pack up his desk and go home.” To presume the PA can suddenly enforce disarmament and secure peace in Gaza ignores decades of entrenched realities.
The plan’s proposed amnesty for Hamas members willing to accept peaceful coexistence risks undermining Israel’s security objectives. Israel demands the complete dismantling of Hamas, not negotiated reprieve. Without enforceable guarantees, such amnesty may embolden militants rather than dissuade them. Similarly, the idea of an international stabilization force is overly optimistic. History demonstrates that such deployments are limited in scope and influence, constrained by politics, funding, and conflicting agendas. Temporary peace without structural change will not address the underlying political, social, and economic drivers of conflict.
| “True peace comes only when all stakeholders, even the marginalized, have a meaningful role in shaping the future.”
Julius Nyerere
Even the “pathway to statehood” in the plan should be treated with caution. Without clear timelines, enforceable mechanisms, or recognition from Israel, it risks being symbolic rather than substantive. Palestinians have repeatedly been promised statehood, Oslo, Camp David, and more, only to see incremental concessions eroded or ignored.
At a broader level, the Trump plan reflects a troubling trend in global diplomacy, the prioritization of optics over substance. A framework that appears to offer Palestinians rights and Israel security may score media points, but without addressing deeper structural and historical realities, it risks perpetuating mistrust, frustration, and conflict.
Trump’s Gaza peace plan, however well-intentioned in rhetoric, fails this test. It misreads history, underestimates entrenched power dynamics, undermines the UN, exploits the fragmented Arab world, ignores Israel’s role in Hamas, and relies on inconsistent international support. For the global community, it should serve not as a blueprint, but as a cautionary tale. Peace is not a product to be packaged and sold.
Sustainable peace lies in approaches that are locally grounded, enforceable, and respectful of Palestinian self-determination. International mediators can play a constructive role, but only if their interventions strengthen rather than replace local institutions and if Arab states, regional actors, and global powers align in a principled, coherent manner. Until these lessons are internalized, any plan risks being a distraction at best and a catalyst for further suffering at worst.
The missteps of the Trump plan are clear. Meaningful peace requires honesty, patience, and the courage to confront the hard truths of history. Anything less will only prolong the suffering of Gaza’s people and further destabilize a region the world can ill afford to misunderstand.
