Trump's Gaza Peace Plan Is Not A Done Deal

Today's meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, described as pivotal, could determine the fate of a 21-point Gaza peace plan, but retired IDF Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland warns it rests on shaky ground. Writing in Ynet, Eiland argues that the plan, developed after months of staff work, hinges on five flawed assumptions that could derail talks with Hamas and reshape the region’s dynamics.

Unlike the trio of meetings between Trump and Netanyahu earlier this year, this summit follows a structured proposal. Yet, expectations of Netanyahu yielding to Trump’s blueprint, under threat of clashing with the U.S. president, are overly simplistic. Arab states have already demanded revisions, and Netanyahu may follow suit, seeking tweaks to align with Israel’s priorities.

More critically, Hamas, the primary counterparty, has not responded to the proposal and is unlikely to accept it as is. Even if all sides agree, translating vague points, like swapping all hostages for an unspecified number of Palestinian prisoners, into a binding legal document could take weeks, risking fresh crises and potential collapse of the talks.

Eiland identifies five misconceptions undermining the plan:

1. October 7 wasn’t desperation: The atrocities were driven by Hamas’s hope to destroy Israel, not despair.

2. Hamas isn’t just al-Qaeda or ISIS: Unlike those groups, Hamas is a political, national, and religious movement with broad Palestinian support, representing a desire to eliminate Israel, not just resist occupation.

3. Hamas’s rejection of two states: While opposing a two-state solution, Hamas would view any Israeli withdrawal as a victory, advancing its phased plan to dismantle Israel.

4. Gaza’s reconstruction won’t end Hamas: Economic revival would strengthen Hamas, as Gaza was already relatively prosperous pre-October 7, with world-class hospital-to-population ratios. The attacks stemmed from ideological ambition, not poverty.

5. Egypt’s motives: Contrary to assumptions, Egypt and many Arab states prefer a weakened Israel, benefiting from a prolonged Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Eiland argues that a narrower deal, hostage-prisoner swaps and a ceasefire, with IDF retaining control over key Gaza areas, could be viable. However, the current plan’s broad, political scope, involving multiple parties, mirrors failed U.S. proposals over decades, ignoring the conflict’s complexities.

He advises Netanyahu to accept the plan if forced to choose, given Hamas’s obligation to release all hostages within 48 hours. Yet, he warns against reconstructing Gaza, as it would empower Hamas and signal Israeli concessions, emboldening adversaries. Instead, leaving Gaza in ruins serves as a stark warning to Israel’s foes, reinforcing deterrence through a “monument” of consequences.

Trump may have had enough os the Israel-Hamas war, much as he has had enough of the Russia-Ukraine War, but Israel needs the U.S. more than Russia needs it, and Netanyahu is likely to accept this deal, however bad it might be for Israel.

Trump also prides himself on ending wars, and in truth, may be Israel's best hope to end this one. Because Hamas isn't backing down and neither is Israel.