On Monday, September 29th, 2025, President Donald Trump shared a 20-point peace plan proposal aimed at ending Israel’s nearly two-year conflict in Gaza. The announcement, made at the White House alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was described by the president as “potentially one of the great days ever in civilization” and intended to achieve “eternal peace.” Key elements of the plan included the release of all 48 remaining Israeli captives, 20 of whom are believed to be alive, within 72 hours of Israel’s acceptance. In exchange, Israel would release 1,950 Palestinian prisoners, including 250 serving life sentences for killing Israelis. The plan also establishes the disarmament of Hamas and its leadership, with Hamas leaders granted either amnesty or exile. The points also present a technocratic Palestinian committee that would temporarily govern Gaza, while an International Stabilization Force would oversee security. Trump himself would chair a “Board of Peace” to supervise reconstruction, with potential participation from international figures like former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Hamas responded on October 3, 2025, indicating their willingness to proceed with the immediate hostage exchange and administrative handover. But they rejected international oversight, disarmament, and other long-term structural elements.

The Trump 20-point peace plan has been widely criticized for its feasibility, ethical implications, and many argued that the plan represents a “neoliberal conflict-management roadmap” rather than a genuine, long-term peace settlement. By handing out governance, policing, and reconstruction to international actors and technocrats, the plan ultimately strips Palestinians of fundamental self-determination. In fact, though the 20-point plan acknowledges Palestinian statehood as an aspiration, it provides no concrete guarantees and completely omits protections against potential annexation of the West Bank. Furthermore, the three-phase withdrawal of Israeli troops lacks a timetable, the composition and mandate of the International Stabilization Force are undefined, and reconstruction funding mechanisms are unspecified. Combined, these gaps create significant barriers to trust, enforcement, and long-term reconciliation–explaining why the plan, despite high-profile support, risks failure unless reimagined.

Taking all of this into consideration, Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan appears to be less about genuine reconciliation and more about control and legacy. What was presented as a groundbreaking diplomatic framework appears to be an ultimatum disguised as a peace offer. From the moment of its announcement, Trump framed the plan as a two-option choice with the tone of the proposal unmistakably coercive. It also aggravated Hamas by offering only a few days to respond, while warning that rejection would unleash Israel’s “full backing to finish the job.” Moreover, the peace proposal seems to be yet another attempt by Trump to reach his political ambition rather than reflecting any genuine commitment to human peace. Trump has previously voiced frustration that his efforts with different peace negotiations did not yield the global recognition he believed he deserved. This new plan, therefore, appears not only as a geopolitical intervention but also as a performance of statesmanship, a spectacle designed to secure Donald Trump a Nobel Prize.

To achieve a genuine and enduring peace in Gaza, strategies must move beyond top-down impositions and focus on the human, social, and moral foundations of reconciliation. The Trump 20-point plan, while ambitious, largely centers on political arrangements, security measures, and high-profile oversight. Yet it neglects the values and conditions that make peace meaningful, including dignity, community cohesion, and social justice. These elements are essential for preventing a return to violence once hostilities cease. First and foremost, trust must be restored between the people of Gaza and Israel. Hostage releases and prisoner exchanges are important, but they are merely symbolic unless followed by guaranteed protections, accountability, and transparency. Historical experiences show the risks of neglecting local trust.

For instance, the 1993 Oslo Accords, while celebrated as a breakthrough, failed to deliver lasting peace partly because they were negotiated without sufficiently including grassroots Palestinian perspectives. Similarly, the 2005 Israeli detachment from Gaza, which removed settlements but left control ambiguous and without robust local governance, resulted in instability and a rapid resurgence of Hamas influence. In both cases, overlooking social cohesion, local legitimacy, and follow-up reconstruction undermined the intended outcomes, lessons that the Trump plan risks repeating if these factors are ignored. Equally important are social reconstruction and the rebuilding of community infrastructure. Peace cannot exist where daily life remains a struggle. Hospitals, schools, and essential utilities must be rehabilitated immediately. Beyond physical reconstruction, attention should be given to psychosocial healing, including support for children and families traumatized by war. Initiatives such as community dialogue, youth engagement programs, and cultural projects can foster reconciliation, reduce radicalization, and create a sense of a shared stake in peace. Furthermore, the peace process must also prioritize human rights, justice, and equality. However, the Trump plan largely sidestepped questions of accountability and long-term justice for civilians affected by the conflict. A feasible peace strategy should include frameworks for addressing grievances, investigating abuses, and ensuring fair treatment for all.

Lasting peace cannot emerge from a political ultimatum or personal ambition. It must be rooted in empathy, accountability, and a strong commitment to the safety and dignity of civilians. When leaders use peace as a tool to serve their own image, they erode the moral foundations necessary for reconciliation. Until the pursuit of peace becomes less about personal glory and more about shared humanity, no proposal will bring true stability to Gaza or to the region. Real peace is not declared but is built slowly, with humility, trust, and the courage to prioritize people over politics.