Trump’s Gaza plan has halted the bloodshed, for now, but its architecture exposes an old paradox: peace is being delivered to Palestinians, not decided by them. As of late October 2025, the ceasefire remains fragile. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports ongoing disputes over inspection controls and intermittent power shortages, while new satellite imagery from Rafah shows long convoys of aid trucks still waiting for clearance. International monitors confirm that while hostilities have largely ceased, minor exchanges of fire continue in Gaza’s northern sector. Talks in Cairo have intensified, with Qatari and Egyptian mediators pushing to accelerate Phase Two, focused on border management and oversight of reconstruction, amid growing international impatience.
When President Donald Trump announced his “20-Point Gaza Peace Plan” (annexed for reference) at the White House on 29 September 2025, the world’s response was divided between relief and scepticism. Right-wing commentators across the United States, Israel, and Europe immediately framed the plan as both a betrayal and a triumph. In Washington, Fox News pundits accused Trump of “surrendering the momentum” after months of praising Israel’s campaign as a righteous war. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir condemned the ceasefire outright, calling it “capitulation under pressure.” Yet across the Atlantic, conservative media outlets celebrated it as a vindication of hard power, proof that “force brings peace.”
The contradictions are glaring. Those who justified mass civilian casualties as necessary now applaud a truce that preserves Israeli control while denying Palestinians any genuine agency. MAGA-aligned voices in the U.S. hail it as proof of Trump’s “decisive diplomacy,” while Europe’s far-right leaders describe it as a model for order imposed from above, not negotiated below. In the UK, Farage and Reform UK praised Trump’s diplomatic efforts, though they stopped short of declaring the deal a moral victory.
Their commentary aligns with a long-standing pro-Israel posture, even when expressing measured support for the ceasefire. Meanwhile, pro-Palestinian demonstrators continue to march through London, Manchester, and Glasgow, demanding that the plan include elections and an end to external control. Protests are often met with hostility online, where right-wing commentators deride demonstrators as “agents of chaos.” Some go further, portraying pro-Palestinian activists as extremists who reject peace itself, accusing them of seeking the destruction of Israel simply because they refuse to celebrate a ceasefire they view as hollow or imposed. Nothing new there.
Beneath this rhetorical battlefield lies the central problem that the Gaza ceasefire, like those before it, was negotiated without the meaningful participation of those it most affects. The blueprint for peace was once again drafted in foreign capitals, Washington, Tel Aviv, Doha, Cairo, and Riyadh, while Palestinians were reduced to observers of their own future. The plan’s centrepiece, the Board of Peace, chaired by Trump and including former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, holds sweeping authority over reconstruction and governance. Under its supervision, a technocratic committee will administer Gaza until a “reformed” Palestinian Authority is deemed ready to take over. Hamas, meanwhile, is excluded entirely. In practice, military occupation has been replaced by international administration.
Supporters present this as a pragmatic state of affairs, with Gaza, they argue, cannot rebuild under Hamas’s rule, and Israel will not return to pre-2023 conditions. Yet recent developments undermine that logic. Israeli ministers remain divided after reports of renewed rocket fire near Khan Younis, and a leaked EU assessment warns that without political inclusion, the truce could collapse within months. U.S. officials confirm ongoing talks to expand the transitional council to include independent Palestinian figures, an idea that has already met fierce resistance in Netanyahu’s cabinet. Sovereignty, once again, is treated as conditional rather than inherent.
That conditionality is now on full display. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared that Israel will not reopen key Gaza crossings for aid shipments until Hamas fully disarms, despite mounting international pressure and UN warnings of a worsening humanitarian crisis. Israeli ministers threaten to derail Phase Two if border restrictions are eased, while Hamas insists it will not surrender arms without guarantees of elections and a full withdrawal. In this cycle of demands and defiance, the promise of statehood remains perpetually deferred.
The absence of Palestinian political agency explains the growing unease in Arab and Western capitals alike. The ceasefire’s humanitarian provisions, the aid corridors, border reopening, and economic zones are ambitious, but they sit atop a framework that limits Palestinians to administration, not authority. The international monitors, the U.S.-chaired Board, and the Gulf-funded reconstruction funds together create an image of Gaza as a managed territory, not a self-governing one. It is a familiar pattern from Oslo to Doha; every promise of autonomy has dissolved into renewed dependency.
The Trump plan risks repeating that trajectory on a grander scale. It offers the optics of peace while cementing control. The demand for Hamas’s full disarmament remains politically implausible; no movement in history has willingly disarmed under foreign supervision, particularly under blockade and occupation. Netanyahu’s refusal to reopen crossings, calling aid delivery “a gift to terror,” has sparked outrage at the UN Security Council. European and Arab representatives warn of collective punishment, while protests in Tel Aviv and Haifa demand accountability from Israel’s government. The far-right coalition remains defiant, and the Palestinian Authority, unelected and discredited, offers little alternative. Without legitimate elections, the technocratic administration envisaged by the plan cannot claim to represent the Palestinian will.
Peace, under these conditions, risks becoming performance rather than substance. Gaza’s silence is not consent but exhaustion, as recent UN footage shows hospitals operating without electricity and civilians queuing for hours for food and water. Analysts from Reuters and The Guardian warn that this temporary calm masks deep divisions over Phase Three, with the Israeli cabinet split over oversight of reconstruction and international pressure mounting for elections within six months.
Meanwhile, malnutrition rates are soaring. The UN Relief and Works Agency reports that nearly half of Gaza’s population is facing acute shortages of food and clean water. Satellite data confirms new Israeli checkpoints restricting movement around Khan Younis, prompting EU criticism and warnings from humanitarian agencies that control is being disguised as peace. Unless Phase Three introduces genuine political renewal, representation, sovereignty, and choice, the ceasefire will inherit the fragility of every deal before it. The world may call this peace; for Palestinians, it remains another suspension of freedom disguised as calm.
Epilogue: The Peace That Shapes the Next War
In Washington, the ceasefire has already become an electoral instrument. Trump’s allies frame it as evidence of his unmatched deal-making prowess, while Democrats quietly fear that the optics of “peace through force” could sway disillusioned voters. In Europe, governments welcome the lull but worry that American unilateralism will marginalise multilateral diplomacy yet again. Across the Arab world, especially in Cairo, Riyadh, and Doha, leaders tread a narrow path, balancing their public condemnation of the humanitarian crisis with quiet endorsement of a deal that secures regional stability and Western favour. But the longer this “managed peace” persists, the more it reveals itself as a geopolitical compromise rather than a moral one. It stabilises the region for the powerful while leaving the powerless suspended in dependency, a peace that may end not in resolution, but in repetition.
Annex: The 20-Point Gaza Ceasefire Plan (2025)
Announced: 29 September 2025
Brokered by: United States (President Donald Trump), with participation from Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and UAE
Ceasefire Effective: 10 October 2025, 12:00 p.m. local time
Phase 1 – Immediate Ceasefire and Exchanges
Immediate Ceasefire Declaration: Both parties declare an unconditional ceasefire halting all operations.
Hostage Release by Hamas: All 48 hostages (20 living, 28 deceased) released within 72 hours.
Prisoner Release by Israel: 250 life-sentence prisoners and 1,700 detainees freed in coordinated batches.
Initial Israeli Troop Withdrawal: IDF withdraws to the “Yellow Line,” ceding control of 47% of Gaza.
Humanitarian Aid Surge: Unrestricted entry of aid via reopened Rafah crossing; 500 trucks daily minimum.
International Monitoring Force: A 200-troop multinational stabilisation unit, under U.S. Central Command oversight (no U.S. boots on ground).
Phase 2 – Withdrawal, Disarmament, and Transitional Governance
Hamas Disarmament Commitment: Hamas to hand over all weapons, rockets, and infrastructure to the ISF.
Transitional Governance: Gaza administered by a non-partisan Palestinian technocratic committee excluding Hamas.
Board of Peace: Chaired by Donald Trump with Tony Blair and international representatives overseeing governance and funding.
Demilitarisation: Gaza declared a “terror-free zone”; destruction of tunnels and militant sites.
Progressive IDF Handover: Israel hands control to the ISF, completing withdrawal by the end of Phase 3.
Phase 3 – Reconstruction and Political Settlement
Reopening of Borders: All Gaza crossings reopen for trade; creation of a regional special economic zone.
Reconstruction Funding: $50 billion fund from the U.S., EU, and Gulf states for infrastructure and housing.
Economic Development Panel: Regional experts to design economic and tech growth strategy (“Trump Economic Plan”).
Palestinian Authority Reform: Structural reforms preparing the PA to assume governance of Gaza.
Security Perimeter: Israel maintains a temporary border presence under ISF supervision.
Non-Compliance Clause: Aid and reconstruction limited to compliant “terror-free” zones.
Pathway to Self-Determination: Conditional recognition of Palestinian statehood post-reform and stability.
Regional Normalisation Incentives: Arab states to deepen ties with Israel based on Gaza progress.
Permanent Peace Talks: U.S.-led negotiations for enduring peace, including equal rights and recognition mechanisms.