Trump and Netanyahu Unveil 20‑Point Gaza Peace Plan at White House

When Donald Trump, President of the United States rolled out a 20‑point blueprint for Gaza on Monday, the world stopped its scroll. The proposal, presented from the iconic White House, also bore the full backing of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Why does this matter? Because it promises a dramatic shift in a conflict that has dragged on for decades, demanding Hamas drop its weapons and hand over governance to a technocratic body overseen by an international commission chaired by Trump himself.

Background to the Conflict

Since the 2007 split, the Gaza Strip has been a flashpoint between Israel and the militant group Hamas. Over the past year, the region has witnessed at least three major Israeli offensives, resulting in more than 9,000 civilian casualties, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. The humanitarian crisis has spurred multiple UN resolutions, but none have secured a lasting ceasefire.

Enter the United States, whose last major peace push— the 2020 Abraham Accords—focused on normalising ties between Israel and Arab states, not directly on Gaza. The new plan, therefore, marks the first time a U.S. president has publicly packaged a detailed, comprehensive settlement that includes both security guarantees for Israel and a pathway to Palestinian statehood.

Details of the 20‑Point Proposal

The plan, released as a white paper, outlines four pillars:

1. Security: Hamas must disarm completely, surrender all rocket stockpiles, and cease any hostile activities.
2. Governance: Control of Gaza would shift to a council of Palestinian technocrats, selected by an international committee chaired by Donald Trump.
3. Reconstruction: A $2.5 billion fund, sourced from the United States, European Union, and Gulf donors, would rebuild homes, hospitals, and schools destroyed since October 2023.
4. Future Statehood: A timeline for a two‑state solution, with borders defined after a verification period of 24 months.

Notably, the document obliges the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to coordinate humanitarian aid alongside the new technocratic council, ensuring that aid does not flow through Hamas channels.

“This is a big, big day,” Trump told reporters, his voice tinged with the optimism that has powered his foreign‑policy narratives since day one. “I’m very confident we can end the war and bring lasting peace.”

Reactions from Regional and Global Actors

The response has been a mosaic of cautious applause and outright skepticism. Eight Arab and Muslim nations—Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates—issued a joint statement calling the plan "a hopeful step toward a just and durable peace." In Europe, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and the European Union echoed similar sentiments, pledging to support the reconstruction fund.

Conversely, Hamas’s political bureau, speaking from its Doha office, said it was "reviewing the proposal" but warned that any plan demanding total disarmament was "untenable" without guarantees for Palestinian rights. A senior Hamas official, who asked to remain anonymous, told Al Jazeera that "the people of Gaza will not accept a surrender that leaves them vulnerable forever."

Israeli officials were visibly relieved. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, addressing the Knesset later that day, declared, "If Hamas accepts, we can finally stop the rockets and begin rebuilding. The alternative is endless bloodshed."

Challenges and Potential Roadblocks

Even with broad diplomatic support, the plan faces three major hurdles:

• Hamas’s Acceptance: The group’s demand for political recognition and cessation of the blockade clashes with the plan’s disarmament clause.
• Implementation Logistics: Transitioning Gaza’s governance to a technocratic council requires security forces, administrative capacity, and immediate international oversight—none of which are currently in place.
• Domestic Politics: Both Trump and Netanyahu must navigate internal opposition. In the United States, a growing segment of Congress has criticised the plan as "too lenient," while in Israel, right‑wing parties warn that any concession could embolden future attacks.

Economists also note that the $2.5 billion reconstruction pledge, while sizable, may fall short of the United Nations’ estimate of $15 billion needed for full recovery.

What Comes Next?

According to White House press secretary Karine Jean‑Pierre, Hamas has until the end of the month to respond. If the group rejects the plan, the United States has warned that Israel will "continue its offensive until the threat is eliminated," a statement that many fear could push the death toll higher.

In the meantime, an emergency summit is scheduled in Geneva for 15 October, where regional leaders will convene under United Nations auspices to discuss the proposal’s finer points. Observers say the summit will be a litmus test for whether the international community can rally behind the plan or if it will dissolve into another round of diplomatic posturing.

For ordinary citizens of Gaza, the promise of a technocratic council and a massive reconstruction fund kindles a fragile hope. But as history has shown, peace plans without grassroots buy‑in often crumble. The coming weeks will determine whether this "big, beautiful" moment becomes a turning point or another footnote in a long‑running saga.