In the unending cycle of violence, contested statehood, religious faultlines, and great-power realignment in the Middle East, a new element has been added—Donald Trump’s self-styled “big and beautiful” 20-point peace plan for Gaza.
Not only is the plan designed to fail upon implementation, but it also undermines Trump’s Abraham Accords, his signature achievement in the first term. The key takeaway is that the situation in the Middle East is unlikely to change anytime soon. It may get much worse before it gets remotely better.
Trump’s plan seeks Arab consent for Israel’s open-ended control over Gaza. In that narrow objective, it will likely succeed.
Damage control
Unveiling the plan alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump claimed endorsements from Arab and Muslim leaders, stressing their support for Gaza’s demilitarisation and the dismantling of Hamas. This followed meetings with Arab leaders on the sidelines of the UNGA. Netanyahu quickly embraced it, even apologising to Qatar for Israeli airspace violations—an unusually conciliatory move meant to smooth tensions.
That apology was not symbolic. Israeli violation of Qatar’s sovereignty had badly damaged the normalisation framework that Trump hoped to cement through the 2020 Abraham Accords. The fallout triggered a Saudi-Pakistan defence pact, extending Islamabad’s nuclear umbrella to Riyadh, the Gulf’s most influential state. Even if largely symbolic, it underscored how diminished US credibility has become in the region.
The UAE, too, voiced frustration with Israel’s actions against Qatar, even hinting at withdrawing from the Abraham Accords if Israeli aggression continued unchecked. The Emiratis reiterated their bottom line: they would not accept anything short of Palestinian statehood, something Bibi flatly rejects.
The 2020 Accords were meant to manage a delicate balance of contesting capabilities across the Arab world—political sensitivities, economic dividends, and security considerations—under the assumption that Israel would remain within certain red lines. That balance went off after the 7 October Hamas attack, and worsened almost irredeemably with the violation of Qatari sovereignty.
Trump, pragmatic yet simplistic, has tried damage control—orchestrating Netanyahu’s apology to Qatar and offering a new security pact to Doha—to reassure Gulf capitals that such violations would not recur. This is aimed at salvaging his signature regional achievement that he hopes to return to in his second term. However, his unwavering support for Israel ultimately undercuts his stated objective, a contradiction that seems rooted in his limited grasp of regional geopolitics.
Also read: India has moved beyond Huntington’s theory in modern war. It’s time to accept reality
‘Bibi Man’ Trump
For now, Washington wants to ensure that the Arab states continue their tacit support for Israel’s “dirty work” to weaken Iran and its proxies, provided that Tel Aviv does not openly compromise their sovereignty. Traditional allies have chimed in with approval: the UK, under Prime Minister Keir Starmer and even former Prime Minister Tony Blair, has been floated as a key figure in the plan’s transitional authority.
Yet, contradictions abound. The UK and France recognise Palestinian statehood; Israel does not. Europeans publicly endorse Palestinian rights while aligning with Israel’s security agenda. In such a contradictory environment, how can a “take it or leave it” deal even function?
Superficially, the plan has drawn support from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Egypt, and Turkey, though many officials later raised doubts. Even Prime Minister Narendra Modi endorsed it, posting his approval in multiple languages—symbolism more than substance, meant to redeem ties with Trump. However, India’s role in Gaza’s reconstruction or initiatives such as I2U2 and IMEC is unlikely to move forward.
Contradictions in Trump’s plan
Despite being packaged into 20 points, Trump’s plan revolves around a few Israel-aligned pillars:
- The immediate return of Israeli captives within 72 hours
- The dismantling of Hamas, politically and militarily
- Temporary international administration of Gaza, excluding Hamas but stopping short of Israeli annexation
- Governance by a technocratic Palestinian committee under a “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump, with global figures such as Blair
- A roadmap for the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) reform modelled on Trump’s 2020 plan and other frameworks
- Prisoner exchanges and a ceasefire contingent on compliance
On paper, this looks balanced—Palestinian governance, international oversight, reconstruction pledges. But in reality, it is a non-negotiable diktat. Hamas has already baulked, demanding fundamental concessions. The core stumbling block is Point 17, which allows Israel, with US backing, to continue military operations in Gaza unless Hamas disarms fully. The “peace plan” is an ultimatum: surrender or be destroyed.
For Hamas, the choice is between bad and worse. Accepting means slower-motion suicide; rejecting means immediate annihilation.
Also read: The Indian diaspora is under attack. What has gone wrong?
Why the plan is doomed
Even if Hamas were to sign under duress, failure is inevitable for deeper reasons:
- Total disarmament contradicts the very identity and legitimacy of Hamas. Why would it agree to its own political suicide?
- Hamas is integral to Tehran’s “Axis of Resistance”. For Iran, its disarmament would mark a strategic defeat, further undermining its regional leverage.
- Netanyahu’s coalition depends on prolonging the war. Any meaningful concessions threaten his government and political career. Even after embracing Trump’s plan, he has reiterated his opposition to a Palestinian state.
- The plan sidelines Palestinian voices—both Hamas and the PA. Imposed externally, it has little legitimacy on the ground.
- Egypt refuses to commit troops to an International Stabilization Force without Palestinian involvement. Qatar continues lobbying on Hamas’s behalf, and Turkey has pitched in.
- There is no clarity on who will fund Gaza’s rebuilding. Trump refuses, Netanyahu certainly won’t do it, and Gulf donors remain non-committal.
Good optics for Arab states
Despite its flaws, the plan still provides Arab capitals with valuable diplomatic cover. Netanyahu’s apology over Israeli airspace violations has restored Qatar’s position as a trusted mediator. Saudi Arabia, having signalled its displeasure with Israel by striking a defence pact with Pakistan, ultimately welcomed the plan as a way to reinforce its claim to leadership in the Muslim world. Turkey has supported the initiative largely to counter Iran’s proxies, while simultaneously pressing for concessions to Hamas in order to safeguard its own regional interests. Egypt and the UAE, for their part, endorsed the proposal to remain aligned with Washington, though both have quietly voiced reservations about its shortcomings.
For Arab states, endorsing Trump’s plan is good optics—participation without risk. They’re signalling goodwill without substantive commitment.
Europe’s role is equally symbolic. With Blair positioned as a figurehead, Europeans can claim involvement without enforcement. Some states have recognised Palestine to balance domestic outrage with their pro-Israel stances.
Even China and Russia welcomed the plan, less out of support for Trump and more to secure their own regional stakes. China’s influence is rising and Russia’s is waning, but both see an advantage in staying engaged.
For Netanyahu, the plan is tactical, not transformative. It secures unconditional US backing for continued operations while buying time. It allows Israel to press on against Hamas—and potentially against Iran-backed groups in Iraq and Syria—without making real concessions.
The plan’s contradictions ensure it will fail. It is not a vision for peace but a mechanism to prolong the status quo under Israel’s military superiority. For Bibi, it ensures domestic survival. For Trump, it revives his diplomatic profile. For Gaza, it offers little beyond prolonged uncertainty and suffering.
India’s role remains peripheral, caught between multi-alignment, stalled projects such as the IMEC, and rising Pakistani visibility in Gulf security. For New Delhi, the priority for now is simply damage control.
Swasti Rao is a Consulting Editor (International and Strategic Affairs) at ThePrint. She tweets @swasrao. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)
What a through and through analysis. Dr. Rao cuts through the clutter like a knife through butter. She brings so many contradictions of the proposed plan to the fore that a regular reader or follower of the crisis could never have envisaged. Keep the cutting-edge and easily comprehensible analysis coming.