On 29 September 2025, Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu unveiled a sweeping peace plan endorsed by Arab and European states. But beneath the applause lies conditional support, unanswered questions, and a dangerous gamble between hope and hypocrisy.
In a Nutshell
Donald Trump unveiled a 20-point peace plan for Gaza in a joint press conference with Netanyahu on 29 September 2025. The proposal, at its core, demands the disarmament of Hamas, the return of all hostages within 72 hours, and the establishment of a transitional governance structure. Israel endorsed the plan immediately.
Several Arab nations and European countries issued statements welcoming the plan and expressing cautious support, while calling for safeguards on refugees, territorial integrity, and cessation of hostilities.
Yet the plan’s very terms raise suspicion: who enforces demilitarization? What happens to Hamas’s infrastructure? How can hostage return be guaranteed against a weakened, splintered Hamas? The endorsements, though loud, may ring hollow.
Reuters:
“Netanyahu says he supports Trump’s peace proposal to end war in Gaza.”
The Main Course
The Plan Unveiled
The plan offers a road map with stages:
-
Immediate ceasefire, if Hamas agrees
-
Return of Israeli hostages (both living and deceased) in a 72-hour window
-
Israel withdraws from population centers while retaining strategic positions
-
Disarmament and dismantling of Hamas’s military wing
-
Transitional governance by technocrats under international oversight
-
Reconstruction and international investment, with Israel barred from annexation
One key element: a Trump-led “Board of Peace”, possibly including Tony Blair, to supervise implementation and governance transitions.
But the devil is in enforcement. Who ensures Hamas walks away from arms? Who guarantees Israeli restraint? What happens if Hamas rejects the terms? The plan hinges on cooperation from a group that has for decades defied negotiation.
Arab + EU Endorsements: Conditional or Complicit?
Several Arab foreign ministries issued statements of support, praising the initiative as a chance to end bloodshed. Europe joined — though with caveats about refugee rights and territorial integrity.Financial Times
The endorsers are walking delicate lines: they cannot appear too supportive of Israel lest they face domestic backlash; but they also depend on Israel for security, intelligence, and stabilization against Iran and extremist threats. Their public cheers may mask private doubts.
Theater vs Action
Endorsement doesn’t equal commitment. What happens when a ceasefire is violated? When reconstruction funds are misused? When hostages can’t be located or corridors fail? Supportive statements by governments may offer diplomatic cover, but unless accompanied by enforcement mechanisms and guarantees, the plan risks becoming another peace theater — one applauded in capitals but ignored in trenches.
Hamas: Acceptance, Rejection, or Reprieve?
Crucially, Hamas has not yet agreed to the terms. Some reports suggest they are evaluating the plan “with goodwill.”Omni But even so, questions abound:
-
Does Hamas still have the command structure to negotiate compliance?
-
Would full surrender (giving up hostages, disarming) be suicide politically and militarily?
-
Can exiled or fragmented leaders guarantee execution of terms in Gaza?
If Hamas rejects the plan, the endorsement becomes a pretext for renewed war — which may have been anticipated in the plan’s design.
The Media Recommends
-
Reuters: “Netanyahu says he supports Trump’s peace proposal.”Reuters
-
Politico: “Trump touts Israel’s approval of his Gaza peace plan; Hamas has not agreed.”Politico
-
FT: “Witkoff says plan addresses Israeli and Arab concerns.”Financial Times
What few headlines ask: what is the leverage to enforce it? What if Hamas stonewalls? What political risk do Arab states take? The press plays the performance; the real test lies off camera.
The Merlow View
Historical Echoes
Peace plans imposed from above have a dismal track record. From Oslo to Camp David II, from Bush’s Roadmap to Kerry’s 2014 proposal — grand blueprints often died in the trenches of noncompliance. The pattern is clear: plans without compulsion become paperweights.
Fantasy vs Reality
The fantasy is that Hamas will demilitarize, that hostages return in hours, that governance transitions smoothly. The reality: the same actors created the war; expecting instant compliance is wishful. The risk is that failure will be blamed on Israel, not on Hamas’s refusal.
Endorsements as Illusions
Arab and EU endorsements are not guarantees. Regimes that applaud the plan now may publicly critique its failures later. Silence is their safety net. If implementation drags or collapses, governments will retreat to denouncements and blame Israel or the U.S. for “broken promises.”
The invitation is not to blindly bless this plan, nor to reject it out of reflex. It is to probe its structure, demand clarity, and ensure that endorsement is not a substitute for accountability.
If this 20-point roadmap is to mean anything, then every clause must be backed by force, by monitoring, by consequence. Otherwise, it is theater masquerading as strategy.
We stand at a crossroads: this plan can either be the framework for real peace — or another stage in the theater of illusion. The difference will be in execution, not applause.
Share this: