US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unveiled a twenty-one-point peace plan this week whose headline promise is an immediate halt to the war in the Gaza Strip. The blueprint would also create a “Board of Peace.” Supporters say this architecture could sustain momentum; detractors fear it recentres Washington and sidelines Palestinian agency.
Core provisions require the disarmament of Hamas and other Palestinian factions and the dismantling of military infrastructure, notably tunnels. The plan affirms there will be no displacement of Gaza’s population and that Israeli forces will withdraw in stages. The Palestinian Authority, however, is denied a role until it completes stipulated reforms. In parallel, a two-year programme is proposed for the reconstruction of the devastated Strip.
Measured narrowly, the positives are evident: stopping the war, ending mass casualties and closing off forced displacement. Yet two elements trigger particular unease: the potential deployment of Arab and international forces, and the central role of a Board chaired by Trump. For many, these are the plan’s most contentious provisions, raising questions about consent, command, accountability and exit strategies. Above all, the requirement to disarm Palestinian resistance groups is a pivotal stumbling block.
Even on a generous reading, the initiative falls short of Palestinian aspirations. Trump’s remarks at launch tracked Netanyahu’s hard-line posture and that of his government — accused by many observers of grave violations during the war. Decision-making now rests with the Palestinian resistance, which received the document through Egyptian and Qatari mediation. Hamas has said it will study the proposal “professionally and objectively”. The world awaits either acceptance of the framework as presented or a request for amendments through the mediators.
Key assurances remain opaque. The text offers limited clarity on preventing a renewed Israeli military return to Gaza or on halting ongoing violations in the West Bank. Confidence-building would require enforceable commitments, verifiable timelines, independent monitoring and a credible arbitration mechanism capable of restraining spoilers and penalising breaches on all sides. Without such safeguards, the plan risks becoming a ceasefire wrapper rather than a workable political settlement.
None of this unfolds in a vacuum. Long-standing American alignment with Israel predates the plan by decades, expressed not only in diplomatic cover but also in sustained military, economic and intelligence support. This alignment has been a structural obstacle for Palestinians, emboldening Israeli actions not solely against them but, critics argue, in repeated regional strikes — seen by many as infringements of sovereignty. In the same period, Israel’s standing has eroded in numerous international forums, with growing opprobrium visible even at the United Nations. Against that backdrop, Washington’s push for a peace formula can appear an attempt to arrest reputational damage and restore political cover for a close ally.
Whether or not Hamas accepts the offer, the Arab–Israeli conflict will persist. It intersects with a wider Arab narrative of anti-colonial resistance and the pursuit of self-determination. In my assessment, Netanyahu’s government — and likely successors—will remain confrontational; prospects for peaceful coexistence are slim while a maximalist vision of “Greater Israel” retains political currency.
On that reading, the conflict is framed within Israeli discourse as existential rather than merely territorial or procedural. Even if the American plan, with all its advantages and liabilities, were implemented in full, the struggle would not end; at best, it would enter a new phase. Allegations of mass atrocities during the war deepen mistrust and amplify fears of expansionist intent, making any settlement fragile without justice and accountability.
Backed by several Arab capitals, the plan may, for now, appear the only available track. Yet the decisive word rests with Hamas and other Palestinian factions, who must weigh the document against Gaza’s bleak realities. The choice is stark: acceptance would likely mean stepping back from armed resistance in Gaza; rejection points to continued fighting amid open-ended American backing for Israel. Either way, the region enters an uncertain chapter that will test whether stated principles can be translated into an enforceable, equitable peace.
Translated by Badr al Dhafari
Awad bin Saeed BaqwirnThe author is a journalist and a member of the State Council
Oman Observer is now on the WhatsApp channel. Click here
