There is cautious optimism on Trump’s Gaza peace plan

The Iraq experience, according to experts, teaches that violence may seem the only option to those who have no role in the political process

Coming quite close on the heels of the recent decisions by the United Kingdom, France, Canada, and Australia to recognise the state of Palestine, hailed as a “historic turning point”, US President Donald Trump’s peace plan for Gaza to end the two-year Israel-Hamas war, which has devastated Gaza’s infrastructure, killed more than 66,000 Palestinians, and caused mass starvation, has been welcomed by the European, Middle Eastern, and other leaders across the world. Though many people are either sceptical or cautiously optimistic about its success after the Hamas-Israel agreement for the first phase of the ceasefire, there are still many looking forward to the withdrawal of the Israeli military from Gaza and a guarantee that hostilities will not resume, though it is not obvious in the current plan. 

As Trump had expressed the possibility that Hamas might reject the plan, stressing the need to confront the group directly, it is apparent that Hamas did not have a seat at the table where the plan was devised, may be in close contact with Israel in a way acceptable to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In fact, there seems to have been little or no Palestinian voice in the development of the plan, though some Arab countries were reportedly kept in the loop. However, the Trump plan has the backing of all major Middle Eastern governments and major Islamic states, except Iran. Obviously, Hamas has given in to international pressure and Trump’s threat to accept the deal, which hopefully will end two years of nightmare for the Gazans. 

The problem with Trump’s approach to Gaza is ‘deal first, details later’. “We will see how it turns out,” Trump said after Hamas conditionally agreed to his peace deal. Despite initial support from some Arab countries, the larger Arab world may be a bit discomfited because even though they have been invited to contribute personnel and financial support, the plan does not offer any vision or guarantee towards addressing the Palestinian right to self-determination—the root cause of the 80-year-old conflict. There may also be discomfort or grudge over the fact that Israel’s highly controversial and questionable conduct in Gaza may be forgotten with no criminal and moral accountability for Israel under international laws in the rush of enthusiasm to make a deal which falls short of achieving lasting peace in the region.

The Trump plan has political punch, but there are many potential problem areas, even after the agreement between Hamas and Israel for the release of hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. The most ambitious aspect of the plan is the requirement for Hamas to accept what it has said it would not—surrender. This requires Hamas to agree to have no role in the governance of Gaza “directly, indirectly or in any form”. This would mean agreeing to disarm and give up all power and control over the Gaza Strip, which Hamas has ruled since 2007. Such a move would pave the way for an end to military operations in Gaza by the Israeli forces, their gradual replacement by international peacekeepers, the inflow of aid, and the rebuilding of the devastated physical and social infrastructure. 

Significantly, the plan calls for Gaza to be demilitarised with the aim of ensuring it would not pose a threat to Israel in the future. It also promises that Gaza will be redeveloped for the benefit of its people, with an assurance that Israel will not occupy or annex the territory. 

As for Hamas and its members, the group will be granted amnesty if they commit to peaceful existence and to decommissioning their weapons. Those of the group’s members who want to leave Gaza would be provided safe passage to another country. The plan also calls for “regional partners” to provide a “guarantee” that Hamas complies with these guarantees. However, under the plan, the Israeli forces will have a presence along Gaza’s perimeter until the “territory is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat.”

On the face of it, a list of 20-point principles does not represent a comprehensive agreement, which could bring some short-term relief and benefit for the people of Gaza who are physically and psychologically exhausted with the war. Given that there is no clarity on a credible pathway to Palestinian statehood or how this would happen, there are some areas where politics may prevent the principles from translating into a workable scheme, and practicalities will present major roadblocks. 

The sequence of actions that will follow the agreement on the plan that starts with the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and a hostage-prisoner exchange, followed by an international oversight body charged with fully disarming Hamas and demilitarising Gaza, raises a question: in the absence of guarantees to protect the Palestinian interest, what happens after the hostages are released? Hamas has called on Trump and the guarantor states to ensure Israel fully implements the ceasefire.

It generally takes months to develop a mandate and operating procedures for a major international peacekeeping mission, according to geopolitical experts. Interestingly, the mission will not be conducted by the United Nations or be under the UN’s control. Instead, Trump will preside over the mission as chairman of a “Board of Peace”, supported by international figures. This, in the expert’s view, is a new and unprecedented arrangement. The plan calls for voluntary dissolution of Hamas as both a military force and civil administration. But civil governance is a great challenge in the absence of any specified alternative civil administration under the plan, which only has reference to “independent monitors”.

After it is disarmed, it is too much to expect Hamas to disappear as a political force. Media reports suggest that it still carries some public support in Gaza even after two years of war. How the disarmed force will be absorbed into Palestine’s future political system is not addressed in Trump’s plan. Going by Iraq’s example, the collapse of political and administrative authority and leaving a significant group out in the cold while searching for a political settlement have serious consequences. The Iraq experience, according to experts, teaches that violence may seem the only option to those who have no role in the political process. Apart from Hamas’ capitulation, the litmus test for Trump’s peace plan is to make Israel fall in line, douse Gaza’s fires, and settle the Palestinian statehood issue.