Trump’ 20-point Gaza plan: peace scheme or colonial mandate?

By: Mohammadreza Moradi

A plan that, by disarming the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement, imposing foreign management, and continuing the Israeli occupation, sows the seeds of new conflicts in the Palestinian territories instead of ending the war.

US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan, which is presented with the alleged aim of “ending war in Gaza,” will not only not lead to lasting peace, but also will intensify the escalation of conflict and consolidation of the Israeli occupation structures, due to its unilateral nature, clear alignment with the Zionist regime’s interests, and disregard for the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people.

This plan, which was formulated and developed with the participation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and figures such as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, seeks to regenerate the past colonial patterns from a political and strategic perspective, which marginalizes the national and human rights of the Palestinians by disarming the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement, imposing foreign management on Gaza, and maintaining Israeli security control.

In this article, the main challenges of this plan and the reasons that make it a failed project in achieving peace will be discussed.

Historical background of Trump’s plan

Trump’s plan for Gaza is presented in the context of a long history of foreign intervention in Palestine, where world powers, from the Balfour Declaration (1917) to the Oslo Accords (1993), have repeatedly tried to manage the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by imposing political and security structures. These plans have often failed due to ignoring the will of the Palestinian people and prioritizing the interests of foreign powers and the Zionist regime. Trump’s plan, presented as the “peace plan,” instead of offering a comprehensive solution, continues the same pattern of unilateralism seen in plans such as the “Deal of the Century” (2020). By emphasizing the disarmament of Hamas, establishing an international monitoring body, and maintaining Israeli security presence, this plan not only fails to address the roots of the conflict (occupation, violation of Palestinian rights, and denial of the right of return), but also seeks to impose an order that deprives Palestinians of their right to self-determination.

Main challenges of the plan

1. Disarming the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement: The main topic of Trump’s plan is the immediate disarmament of the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas and the destruction of its military infrastructures. This condition, accompanied by the threat of heavy sanctions, is not only unrealistic, but also means denying the Palestinians’ rights to legitimate defense against the Zionist regime’s occupation. The Palestinian Resistance, especially Hamas, is historically an inseparable and integral part of the struggle for Palestinian freedom and independence. According to Ismail Al-Thawabta, director general of the Government Information Office in Gaza, the plan is “an attempt to impose a new mandate that legitimizes the Israeli occupation and deprives the Palestinian people of their national, political, and human rights.” Disarming the Resistance Movement without guaranteeing the Palestinians’ basic rights, such as the right of return and the establishment of an independent state, means forced surrender to the occupation that has been going on since 1948. The historical experience shows that the Palestinian resistance has not given in to similar pressures and has continued its struggle. Therefore, not only this condition will not lead to peace, but will most likely fuel the intensification of resistance and conflicts.

2. External management of Gaza and regeneration of the colonial model: The Trump’s plan raises the creation of a “Peace Council,” an international body under the supervision of Donald Trump and with the participation of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair that would oversee a “technocratic and apolitical” Palestinian Committee to manage public services and urban affairs in Gaza. This structure is clearly reminiscent of the past colonial models in which foreign powers took control of the occupied territories under the pretext of reconstruction and development. The presence of Tony Blair, who is widely criticized for his role in the invasion of Iraq (2003) and his support for false claims about weapons of mass destruction, is controversial. Mustafa al-Barghouthi, secretary general of the Palestinian National Initiative, states: “We were previously under British colonialism. Tony Blair has a negative reputation here. If you mention Tony Blair’s name, the first thing people remember is the Iraq war.” Comparing Blair’s proposed role with Paul Bremer, the US civilian ruler of Iraq after the 2003 invasion, reveals disturbing similarities. Bremer contributed to instability and chaos in Iraq with policies such as the dissolution of the Iraqi army. Blair’s presence in Gaza is likely to have similar results, given its lack of legitimacy and deep Palestinian distrust. This model of external management, which deprives Palestinians of any real participation in the governance of their land, not only does not contribute to peace, but also, as a new colonial project, provokes further resistance.

3. Israel’s lack of a complete withdrawal and continued occupation: One of the fundamental weaknesses of the Trump’s plan is its lack of commitment to a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. The plan proposes a gradual withdrawal of Israeli troops without a specific timetable, which means maintaining the security control of the Zionist regime over the northern and southern parts of Gaza. Palestinian analyst Hani al-Masri says in this regard: “The plan’s failure to specify the actual withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip through a gradual withdrawal without a time limit means that Israeli security control will remain until further notice.” This contradicts Trump’s claim that “Israel will not occupy Gaza.” The continuation of Israel’s military presence, even in a limited form, means the continuation of the occupation and the violation of Palestinian sovereignty. This situation not only prevents the reconstruction of Gaza and the return of refugees, but also allows the Zionist regime to launch new attacks under security pretexts. Historical experience has shown that the Zionist regime has used such situations to consolidate its control over Palestinian lands.

Why Trump’s plan won’t lead to peace?

1. Unilateral alignment with the Zionist regime: Trump’s plan is clearly designed to serve the interests of the Zionist regime and, rather than creating a balance between the parties, works in favor of Israel. By focusing on disarming Hamas and eliminating its political role, the plan seeks to eradicate the Palestinian resistance, while placing no limits on Israeli military action. Trump has even threatened that if Hamas does not accept the plan, Netanyahu will be given the “green light” to “accomplish the mission,” a phrase that means continuing military attacks and killing Palestinian civilians. This unilateralism, rooted in America’s unconditional support for Israel, eliminates any possibility of fair negotiations.

2. Ignoring the fundamental rights of Palestinians: The Trump’s plan makes no mention of the inalienable rights of the Palestinians, including the right of return, independence, and the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Al-Quds as its capital. According to Ziyad al-Nakhalah, secretary general of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement, “What was announced at the press conference between Trump and Netanyahu is a US-Israeli agreement that fully reflects the Israeli position.” By proposing that Gaza be administered by a foreign entity without real Palestinian participation, the plan ignores their national sovereignty and turns the Palestinians into a dominated minority.

3. Unrealistic implementation: The Trump’s plan faces several practical obstacles. First, the Palestinian resistance may be pressured by regional and international pressure, but it is unlikely to agree to complete disarmament. Second, countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are strongly opposed to the idea of ​​forced displacement of Palestinians or the imposition of a foreign administration on Gaza. These oppositions, followed by the Palestinians’ deep distrust of Trump and Blair, makes the plan virtually impossible to implement.

4. Similarities to failed colonial projects: Trump’s plan is reminiscent of the past colonial projects that have all ended in failure. His proposal to transform Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East” under American control bears a striking resemblance to 20th-century imperialist dreams. CNN has warned that the plan could lead to “ethnic cleansing” and further destabilize the region. The experience of Iraq after 2003 showed that imposing foreign rule without regard to the will of the local population leads to chaos and armed resistance.

Conclusion

US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan, unveiled during a meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu, has been criticized for its unilateralism and vagueness, claiming to establish a ceasefire in Gaza. The plan, which was previously presented to Arab leaders on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, emphasizes the immediate release of Israeli prisoners, handover of bodies of those killed within 72 hours, and disarmament of the Palestinian resistance, but does not provide a specific timetable for the reconstruction of Gaza, release of all Palestinian prisoners, or entry of humanitarian aid. It only mentions the release of 250 Palestinian prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment and 1,700 others. Contrary to his previous statements about forced displacement, Trump has claimed that withdrawal from Gaza is voluntary. His plan includes the creation of an international body and a committee of technocrats to govern Gaza, but the details of the members of these bodies, timing, and financing are unclear. Also, a gradual withdrawal of the Zionist regime without a geographical border or a clear timetable means continued Israeli security control. By eliminating the role of Hamas and offering a “safe passage” for its members to leave, the plan will lead to the imposition of occupation and the denial of Palestinian rights instead of peace. The plan, designed with the participation of hated figures such as Tony Blair, ignores the fundamental rights of the Palestinians and, instead of peace, will pave the way for a new round of conflict. Egyptian politician Mohamed ElBaradei has described the plan as a “surrender and compromise plan.” To achieve real peace, the roots of the conflict, namely the Israeli occupation and the violation of Palestinian rights, must be addressed. Until these rights are recognized, no plan can lead to lasting peace.

IranView24 Editorial Strategic Summary

Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza not only fails to address the real roots of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but also seeks to consolidate the occupation in a new form as part of the US and Israeli grand strategy for crisis management. The plan has three main topics:

• Disarmament of the resistance,
• Imposing external management and
• Continuation of Israeli security control.

All three topics in practice mean denying the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and regeneration of past colonial structures.

From a geopolitical perspective, this plan is designed in line with Tel Aviv’s interests and seeks to neutralize resistance actors in the regional security equation.

From a social perspective, the plan lacks popular legitimacy and is doomed to failure at the domestic level due to its disregard for the fundamental demands and rights of the Palestinians.

At the regional level, opposition from key Arab players and deep distrust of America and figures like Tony Blair will prevent its implementation.

Historical experience—from the Balfour Declaration to the Deal of the Century—shows that any plan that is based on eliminating resistance, denying Palestinian national rights, and imposing foreign mandates will not only not lead to peace but also will exacerbate the conflict, strengthen the discourse of resistance, and increase instability. Therefore, Trump’s plan should be seen not as a roadmap for peace, but as a failed geopolitical plan that is likely to lead to a new cycle of tension and resistance.