Negotiations are underway to refine Donald Trump’s 20-point “Gaza Peace Plan,” but as the talks progress, many analysts see the initiative less as a pathway to peace and more as an attempt to formalize control over a shattered territory.

The US president, who announced the proposal as part of his campaign’s foreign policy platform, frames it as a bold humanitarian vision to “end the war and rebuild Gaza.” Yet its provisions, including demands for Hamas’s complete surrender, international oversight of the enclave, and the appointment of a “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump himself, have alarmed Middle East experts who say it entrenches rather than resolves the root causes of the conflict.

A plan built on power, not partnership

At the heart of the criticism lies one fundamental flaw: Palestinians are not at the table.

“It looks like they’re trying to separate the whole issue of the hostage release from the other aspects of Trump’s 20-point plan that deal with the future of Gaza,” said Nader Hashemi, Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Denver. “They’re focusing on short-term issues — hostage release, ceasefire length, humanitarian aid — but the longer-term questions, like Tony Blair running Gaza and the disarming of Hamas, have been pushed to the back burner.”

The plan calls for a phased ceasefire tied to strict conditions, followed by the deployment of an international force made up of Arab and Islamic countries. Once Hamas is disarmed, a transitional administration — the so-called “Board of Peace” — would govern Gaza and oversee reconstruction.

Trump has framed the proposal as a historic compromise that “gives peace a chance” while protecting Israeli security. But the architects of peace, critics argue, seem to be the same powers that have sustained "Israel’s" blockade and military dominance over the enclave.

“There’s no Palestinian representation in the plan. No Palestinian was consulted — not even the leaders in Ramallah,” Hashemi said. “It’s a huge gap, especially given that Trump and many countries view this as a plan for peace in the Middle East.”

Yasser Louati, a political analyst and head of the Committee for Justice & Liberties, said the very notion of a “peace” plan after two years of devastation is deeply misleading. “It’s difficult to speak of a victory of the people of Gaza in the aftermath of a genocide,” he said in an interview for Al Mayadeen English. “However, in all asymmetric warfare, when the occupant does not win, he can only lose — and all the stated objectives of Israel have failed.” Louati added that calling this a moment of peace or victory “ignores that Palestinians don’t even have access to food and water, let alone proper health care.”

Excluding Palestinians from their own future

That absence of Palestinian agency is, for many observers, the clearest sign that the plan is not about reconciliation but about management — an internationalized system of control over Gaza’s population.

Geoffrey Aronson, a veteran Middle East analyst and former director of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, agrees.

“There’s no Palestinian official, internationally recognized partner. The PLO and the PA are explicitly excluded,” Aronson said, speaking to Al Mayadeen English. “There’s also no assumption of a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip — in fact, the opposite.”

The deliberate exclusion of the Palestinian Authority — once the linchpin of previous peace efforts — suggests a deliberate bypass of established diplomatic frameworks like the Oslo Accords. Aronson notes that the Trump proposal not only redefines who has a voice but also who has power.

“We’ve been to this dance before,” he said. “What was happening during the Oslo era — Israeli withdrawal, recognition of the PLO, a Palestinian state at peace with Israel — those remain the touchstones. There’s no need to reinvent that wheel.”

Louati believes that "Israel’s" acceptance of the plan’s terms — ones it had earlier deemed impossible — reveals its weakened position rather than strength. “Their military is overstretched, their finances are strained, and this deal was about saving Israel, which could not sustain a longer campaign,” he said. “It’s audacious for Netanyahu to claim victory when all the facts prove the opposite. This was the U.S. giving Israel a break, not a win.”

'A genocide extortion plan'

For Hashemi, the plan represents not peacebuilding but coercion.

“The best parts of the plan are the calls for a ceasefire and humanitarian aid — but those are basic human rights, not negotiation points,” he said. “That’s why I call this plan a genocide extortion plan, because Trump has basically admitted that unless there is full surrender by Hamas, he will give Netanyahu the green light to continue the genocide and starve Palestinians.”

Louati echoed this, calling the proposal “a temporary truce dressed as diplomacy.” “Israel will never stick to a ceasefire — it never did and never will,” he said. “This is just about giving Israel time to recoup until the next campaign.”

The proposal’s conditionality — tying food and aid to political submission — mirrors what many describe as a new colonial arrangement. Critics argue that it allows the same powers responsible for Gaza’s destruction — "Israel" and the United States — to dictate the terms of its recovery.

The deal offers no enforceable protections for Palestinians, no guarantee of freedom of movement, and no assurance that reconstruction will be independent of Israeli control. Instead, it establishes a model where the besieged population’s survival depends on the goodwill of those enforcing their siege.

'A return to colonialism'

Hashemi sees the plan as a step backward — not toward peace, but toward a 21st-century form of trusteeship.

“It’s not realistic,” he said. “It presupposes that Hamas will disarm and move out of the territory. Someone has to do that — who’s going to do it? Gaza will be run the way the British ran Palestine 105 years ago.”

Under Trump’s vision, the international “Board of Peace” — comprising representatives from the US, UK, "Israel", and select Arab states — would assume administrative authority over Gaza. Tony Blair’s name, floated as a potential co-chair, has drawn particular skepticism from those who recall his tenure as Middle East envoy during the years after the war on Iraq, when promised reconstruction and reform initiatives repeatedly faltered.

For Hashemi, the symbolism is unmistakable: a Western-led body presiding over an occupied territory, with Palestinians reduced to passive recipients of aid and discipline.

Related News

US engagement with Mali junta exposes double standards

6 hours in Alaska: A meeting that empowered Putin with little progress on peace

Louati added that such a model “cements Israel’s rogue-state behavior” and likened it to France’s colonial war in Algeria. “The FLN (nationalist Algerian political party) did not win militarily, but it won the battle of global public opinion,” he said. “The same is happening here — Israel has lost the moral war and isolated itself internationally.”

'Absolutely divorced from reality'

Aronson is equally dismissive of the plan’s feasibility.

“Well, it’s silly, isn’t it?” he said. “It’s absolutely divorced from the situation on the ground. Hamas is not simply going to pack up and go away,” Aronson added.

“To expect otherwise,” he adds, “is to ignore the last 17 years of Gaza’s political and military reality.”

“Already we’re seeing countries like Egypt and Turkey saying the effort they endorsed is not the draft that’s current in the White House or Israel,” Aronson said. “So this risks becoming just another idea we can put on the shelf of short-circuited efforts to resolve the conflict.”

Louati said that while Trump frames his proposal as statesmanship, “it’s really a lifeline thrown to an embattled Israel.” “Netanyahu is running out of time — even his Western backers are losing patience,” he said. “The plan just delays the inevitable reckoning inside Israeli society.”

Security for one side, silence for the other

Both Hashemi and Aronson point to the same imbalance: the Trump plan guarantees security for "Israel" but none for Palestinians.

“The plan is predicated on Israel’s security needs, not Palestinian rights,” Hashemi said. “There should be international guarantees — Israeli withdrawal, a ceasefire enforced by the international community, lifting the blockade, and a no-fly zone over Gaza. But none of that is in the deal.”

Aronson agrees that the plan reaffirms the status quo rather than challenging it.

“It’s a one-way street,” he said. “Israel’s concerns are institutionalized; Palestinian rights are treated as optional.”

Louati went further, arguing that even the limited prisoner exchange under the deal exposes the hypocrisy of its “peace” branding. “The prisoners freed are not criminals — they are hostages,” he said. “It’s a small symbolic win, but thousands remain in Israeli cells. Israel had to give something up to make Trump’s plan look credible.”

In practice, this means "Israel" retains the power to control Gaza’s borders, airspace, and reconstruction funds — all under the guise of security oversight. The result, Hashemi warns, is a rebranded occupation.

“If Israel retains veto power over Gaza’s governance, movement, and aid, that’s not peace — that’s control,” he said.

Arab silence and complicity

Perhaps the most striking element of the Trump plan is not what it says but how Arab and Muslim governments have responded.

“They have given legitimacy to this colonization plan for Gaza, effectively burying the cause of Palestine,” Hashemi said. “It exposes the complete lack of moral scruples that many of these leaders have with respect to Palestinian rights.”

Regional reactions have ranged from cautious endorsement to quiet acceptance. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have all expressed “interest” in the plan, framing it as an opportunity to stabilize the region.

Aronson interprets this pragmatically.

“Arab and Islamic countries haven’t shut the door to the effort,” he said. “They feel it’s better to keep the door open to the Trump administration, hoping to move diplomacy in a more positive direction.”

That diplomatic caution, he adds, reflects a wider strategic shift. Since the "Abraham Accords", many Arab states have prioritized normalization with "Israel" and US alliances over confrontation. Trump’s proposal, in that sense, provides a framework for further normalization — this time under the banner of “post-war reconstruction.”

Broader territorial struggle

For Aronson, the Gaza plan is not just about the enclave itself; it’s part of a much larger territorial strategy.

“At the end of the day, this is a struggle over territory, and territory is the currency through which this policy either fails or succeeds,” he said. “While focus has been on Gaza, Israelis are taking unprecedented moves to alienate more and more land from Palestinian control.”

Indeed, since the war began, "Israel" has intensified settlement expansion in the West Bank, legalized outposts, and seized land in strategic corridors around al-Quds. Analysts fear that the Gaza plan could serve as a blueprint for managing Palestinian populations elsewhere — containment through external administration rather than sovereignty.

“It’s a model for what we’re going to see in the West Bank,” Hashemi warned. “External authority, no demand for settlement freeze, and no path to sovereignty.”

Louati noted that only a handful of states — notably Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran — have offered genuine support to the Palestinian Resistance. “We may criticize them, but they were the only ones willing to stand up,” he said. “Most Arab governments have acted as accomplices, not allies.”

An old conflict in new packaging

The Trump administration’s defenders argue that no plan can succeed without addressing "Israel’s" security concerns and Hamas’ militarization. Yet for critics, the “peace through surrender” formula not only misunderstands Palestinian realities but also erases decades of international law and precedent.

As Aronson put it: “The shortcomings of the Trump effort are not dissimilar from those of Oslo or the Road Map. We’re back to the same imbalance — unprecedented Israeli power and unprecedented Palestinian weakness.”

And for Hashemi, the message of the plan is chillingly clear.

“Any form of resistance to Israel or the West will end in failure, and the only way Palestinians can survive is by submitting to Israeli control.”

Louati warned that such narratives are “designed to crush Palestinian political will” and to erase the international outrage now turning against Israel. “The war has bankrupted Israel’s moral capital,” he said. “The Trump plan is Washington’s attempt to repackage its client’s defeat as a peace deal.”

The Trump plan, Hashemi said, is not a peace proposal but a political message — to the Arab world, to Washington’s allies, and to Palestinians themselves. It signals that the era of negotiated sovereignty is over; what remains is managed occupation, repackaged as stability.

Peace or perpetual control?

As the negotiations unfold, few expect Trump’s proposal to end the war on Gaza. Instead, analysts see it as an attempt to impose a new political order — one that consolidates "Israel’s" dominance while outsourcing the costs of occupation to international and regional actors.

In this vision, Gaza becomes a laboratory for post-war pacification, not liberation. Humanitarian aid replaces rights; administration replaces autonomy.

The world, weary of war, may accept this arrangement. But for millions of Palestinians, it would mean living indefinitely under a peace that isn’t theirs.