In the volatile landscape of Middle East politics, two seismic events unfolded in late September, reshaping narratives around Israel’s war on Gaza.

On September 26, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a fiery address to the United Nations General Assembly, vowing to block Palestinian statehood amid walkouts by dozens of delegates. Three days later, on September 29, U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled a 21-point peace plan following a White House meeting with Netanyahu, proposing an end to the Gaza violence, hostage release, and a potential pathway to Palestinian statehood.

The new proposal marks a significant shift in Washington’s stance. It is a major change from February, when President Trump shocked the world by suggesting the U.S. could take over Gaza, build a Riviera, and permanently relocate its two million people. In a transformative step toward Gaza’s revival, residents will have the freedom to choose their path, with no one forced to leave their homeland. Those who wish to depart will be free to do so and return at their discretion, while a bold initiative encourages Gazans to stay and shape a brighter future.

Israel will neither occupy nor annex Gaza, paving the way for a transformative era of redevelopment and self-governance. Hamas and similar groups will have no role in Gaza’s future administration, ensuring a focus on stability and progress. A newly formed technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, backed by international experts, will manage essential public services and municipal operations, ensuring stability and support for the region’s people.

To complement this effort, President Trump will spearhead an ambitious economic development plan, assembling a panel of experts behind the Middle East’s thriving modern cities. The plan’s suggestion of a potential path to a future Palestinian state—after Gaza is rebuilt and the Palestinian Authority undergoes reforms—also represents a major departure from the Trump administration’s previous refusal to endorse a two-state solution.

Some analysts argue that the proposed 21-point plan outlines a pathway to Palestinian statehood that is so heavily conditional it appears watered down to the point of being largely theoretical. While it represents a rhetorical evolution from the Trump administration’s earlier musings on relocating Gaza’s population, statehood is presented not as a right or a guaranteed outcome, but as a distant reward contingent on meeting a series of vaguely defined and immensely challenging prerequisites.

A transitional government led by a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee will soon take shape to stabilize and rebuild Gaza. This initiative will be guided by the newly established Board of Peace, an international transitional body tasked with setting the strategic framework and securing funding for Gaza’s redevelopment. The board will be chaired by President Trump and could include former UK prime minister Tony Blair.

The committee’s work will continue until the Palestinian Authority completes its reform programme. The proposal—developed mainly by U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and expected to be refined further—contains several provisions that Israel has long wanted. However, the suggestion of a pathway to a future Palestinian state goes against the stated position of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His statement to the UN General Assembly leaves no room for interpretation:

“Giving the Palestinians a state one mile from Jerusalem after October 7 is like giving Al Qaeda a state one mile from New York City after September 11. This is sheer madness. It’s insane and we won’t do it. Israel will not allow you to shove a terror state down our throats.”

These developments highlight a high-stakes diplomatic tightrope between Netanyahu’s unyielding security-first stance and Trump’s deal-oriented vision. By sidelining the Palestinian Authority and declaring no tolerance for Hamas, the plan risks undermining the most credible foundation for a future state.

Its foundational steps—creating a de-radicalized, terror-free Gaza under an interim technocratic government—are not mere procedural hurdles but the core of the quagmire. These demands, including the massive undertaking of disarming Hamas and a complex de-radicalization process of a traumatised nation, rely on an untested international force and a long-term peace that does not yet exist.

Mushtaq Shah, Pakistan’s former ambassador to Jordan and Egypt, acknowledges the selective ambiguity of the plan. “It is vague enough to allow for broad interpretation, even manipulation, during implementation. Much remains to be negotiated,” he tells The News on Sunday. Despite its shortcomings, Ambassador Shah describes the initiative as a vital lifeline for Palestinians facing relentless violence. “Anything that can help end the bloodshed and allow humanitarian aid to reach people is welcome,” he stresses.

Later, in meetings in New York with U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and adviser Jared Kushner, Netanyahu secured key revisions on disarmament. While last week’s draft offered amnesty to Hamas members pledging peaceful coexistence, the updated plan requires them to surrender. It also strengthens language mandating the destruction and cessation of all offensive military capability.

The updated plan includes a map outlining three phases of Israeli withdrawal. Israel Defence Forces (IDF) will still control most of Gaza after the so-called first withdrawal until an International Stabilisation Force arrives to oversee Hamas’s disarmament. After the second phase, Israel will retain more than a third of the Gaza Strip. Even after the final phase of full withdrawal, Israel will retain a permanent security buffer along Gaza’s perimeter.

The revised plan conditions each withdrawal stage on standards and milestones tied to demilitarisation, effectively allowing Israel to delay its exit until Gaza is deemed secure. If Hamas delays or rejects the plan, it will proceed in terror-free areas, which the IDF will hand over to the International Stabilisation Force.

While it proposes new leaders committed to peace, regional security guarantees, and new security forces to replace Hamas, the fundamental question remains: who will govern Gaza?

Ambassador Javed Hafiz argues that while Israel and the U.S. can dismantle Hamas’s visible structure, the group will survive as a potent ideological force, much like Hezbollah. The stated goal of disarmament may, in practice, only reduce its military capacity to a level Israel finds manageable rather than achieving total elimination.

The alternative, the Mahmoud Abbas-led Palestinian Authority, is widely seen by Gazans as corrupt, illegitimate, and ineffective. Ambassador Hafiz suggests that the most likely — yet fraught — compromise is installing a technocratic government under a transitional authority.

President Trump has tapped former British prime minister Tony Blair for the Gaza interim authority. However, Blair is not trusted by many in the Arab world and the UK due to his controversial role in the Iraq War. This transitional authority will likely include Arab members to provide legitimacy and avoid the appearance of a direct Israeli-American occupation, with Gulf states funding reconstruction.

Its success will depend entirely on its ability to deliver tangible improvements to daily life while navigating the complex pressures of Palestinian politics, Israel, and wary Arab patrons, says Ambassador Hafiz.

The primary focus of Hamas, the Palestinian leadership, and Arab governments is on securing ironclad guarantees against the annexation of Gaza and the West Bank and on restoring Jerusalem’s status, says Ambassador Hafiz. However, the diplomatic maneuvering is starkly disconnected from realities on the ground.

Ambassador Hafiz points out that Israel has already effectively annexed roughly 60 percent of the West Bank through its military control and buffer zones. On July 23, the Knesset approved a bill to impose its sovereignty over the West Bank, a move critics call annexation.

This highlights a stark divide: while international powers oppose such measures, Israel is systematically rendering Gaza uninhabitable to spur a Palestinian exodus and expanding the West Bank settlements. The United States has supported Israel’s position. Its ambassador recently used biblical terms, Judea and Samaria, for the West Bank, tacitly endorsing Israeli territorial claims.

Ambassador Javed Hafiz notes that despite Tel Aviv’s strong desire, annexation of the Jordan Valley is unlikely now. Gaza’s near-total destruction requires an unprecedented, multi-billion-dollar reconstruction effort, involving experts to build a modern urban economy. The process will likely take many years.

The U.S. and Israel may not wish to assign the rebuilding role to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). Both have previously sought to undermine the organisation. Coordinating among multiple Arab states with differing priorities and foreign policies will be complex.

Ambassador Hafiz suggests two possibilities: either UNRWA is resuscitated, or Egypt, Turkey, and the Gulf states take the lead. A Middle East-led approach may offer greater regional legitimacy, he says. Ambassador Hafiz emphasises that the Arab world must put their act together to seize this opportunity to rebuild Gaza and foster long-term stability.

The explicit pathway to statehood makes statehood a declared goal in the plan contingent on two vague conditions: advancing Gaza’s redevelopment and implementing Palestinian Authority reforms. This intentional vagueness—failing to define what “advanced” means or specify the required reforms—creates a mechanism effectively allowing statehood to be indefinitely postponed.

The plan commits the U.S. to facilitating a final settlement on issues like borders, Jerusalem, and refugees, but its launch depends on the success of highly ambitious, prior security and governance steps—a sequencing that has historically doomed similar initiatives.

It offers Palestinians a conditional pathway to statehood, requiring them to build a state tailored to Israeli security needs.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1348319-trumps-blurry-path-to-peace

In the volatile landscape of Middle East politics, two seismic events unfolded in late September, reshaping narratives around Israel’s war on Gaza.

On September 26, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a fiery address to the United Nations General Assembly, vowing to block Palestinian statehood amid a walkout by dozens of delegates. Three days later, on September 29, US President Donald Trump unveiled a 21-point peace plan following a White House meeting with Netanyahu. The proposal aimed to end the Gaza violence, secure hostage release, and establish a potential pathway to Palestinian statehood.

This new proposal marks a significant shift in Washington’s stance. It contrasts sharply with Trump’s February suggestion that the US could take over Gaza, build a Riviera, and permanently relocate its two million residents. Now, in a transformative step toward Gaza’s revival, residents will have the freedom to choose their path, with no one forced to leave their homeland. Those who wish to depart will be free to do so and return at their discretion, while a bold initiative encourages Gazans to stay and shape a brighter future.

Importantly, Israel will neither occupy nor annex Gaza, paving the way for a transformative era of redevelopment and self-governance. Hamas and similar groups will have no role in Gaza’s future administration, ensuring a focus on stability and progress.

A newly formed technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, backed by international experts, will manage essential public services and municipal operations, providing stability and support for the region’s people. To complement this effort, President Trump will spearhead an ambitious economic development plan, assembling a panel of experts experienced with the Middle East’s thriving modern cities.

The plan’s suggestion of a potential path to a future Palestinian state—after Gaza is rebuilt and the Palestinian Authority undergoes reforms—also represents a major departure from the Trump administration’s previous refusal to endorse a two-state solution.

### Analysis and Criticism

Some analysts argue that the proposed 21-point plan outlines a pathway to Palestinian statehood so heavily conditional that it appears watered down and largely theoretical. While it marks a rhetorical evolution from earlier musings about relocating Gaza’s population, statehood is presented not as a right or guaranteed outcome, but as a distant reward contingent on meeting a series of vaguely defined and immensely challenging prerequisites.

A transitional government led by the technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee will soon take shape to stabilize and rebuild Gaza. This initiative will be guided by the newly established Board of Peace—an international transitional body tasked with setting the strategic framework and securing funding for Gaza’s redevelopment. The board will be chaired by President Trump and could include former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The committee’s work will continue until the Palestinian Authority completes its reform program. The proposal, developed mainly by US special envoy Steve Witkoff and expected to be refined further, contains several provisions Israel has long wanted. However, the suggestion of a pathway to a future Palestinian state contradicts Netanyahu’s stated position.

In his UN General Assembly speech, Netanyahu said, “Giving the Palestinians a state one mile from Jerusalem after October 7 is like giving Al Qaeda a state one mile from New York City after September 11. This is sheer madness. It’s insane, and we won’t do it. Israel will not allow you to shove a terror state down our throats.”

### Diplomatic Tightrope and Security Concerns

These developments highlight a high-stakes diplomatic tightrope between Netanyahu’s unyielding security-first stance and Trump’s deal-oriented vision. By sidelining the Palestinian Authority and declaring no tolerance for Hamas, the plan risks undermining the most credible foundation for a future state.

The foundational steps—creating a de-radicalized, terror-free Gaza under an interim technocratic government—are not mere procedural hurdles but the core of the quagmire. These demands, including the massive undertaking of disarming Hamas and a complex de-radicalization process of a traumatized nation, rely on an untested international force and a long-term peace that does not yet exist.

Mushtaq Shah, Pakistan’s former ambassador to Jordan and Egypt, acknowledges the plan’s selective ambiguity. “It is vague enough to allow for broad interpretation, even manipulation, during implementation. Much remains to be negotiated,” he told The News on Sunday. Despite its shortcomings, Ambassador Shah describes the initiative as a vital lifeline for Palestinians facing relentless violence. “Anything that can help end the bloodshed and allow humanitarian aid to reach people is welcome,” he stresses.

### Revisions and Implementation Phases

In meetings in New York with US envoy Steve Witkoff and adviser Jared Kushner, Netanyahu secured key revisions on disarmament. While last week’s draft offered amnesty to Hamas members pledging peaceful coexistence, the updated plan requires them to surrender. It also strengthens language mandating the destruction and cessation of all offensive military capability.

The updated plan includes a map outlining three phases of Israeli withdrawal. Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) will still control most of Gaza after the so-called first withdrawal until an International Stabilization Force arrives to oversee Hamas’s disarmament. After the second phase, Israel will retain more than a third of the Gaza Strip. Even after the final phase of full withdrawal, Israel will maintain a permanent security buffer along Gaza’s perimeter.

The revised plan conditions each withdrawal stage on standards and milestones tied to demilitarization, effectively allowing Israel to delay its exit until Gaza is deemed secure. If Hamas delays or rejects the plan, it will proceed in terror-free areas, which the IDF will hand over to the International Stabilization Force.

While the plan proposes new leaders committed to peace, regional security guarantees, and new security forces to replace Hamas, the fundamental question remains: who will govern Gaza?

### Governance Challenges and Regional Dynamics

Ambassador Javed Hafiz argues that while Israel and the US can dismantle Hamas’s visible structure, the group will survive as a potent ideological force, much like Hezbollah. The goal of disarmament may, in practice, only reduce its military capacity to a level Israel finds manageable rather than achieving total elimination.

The alternative, the Mahmoud Abbas-led Palestinian Authority, is widely seen by Gazans as corrupt, illegitimate, and ineffective. Ambassador Hafiz suggests that the most likely—yet fraught—compromise is installing a technocratic government under a transitional authority.

President Trump has tapped former British Prime Minister Tony Blair for the Gaza interim authority. However, Blair is not trusted by many in the Arab world and the UK due to his controversial role in the Iraq War. The transitional authority will likely include Arab members to provide legitimacy and avoid the appearance of direct Israeli-American occupation, with Gulf states funding reconstruction.

Its success will depend entirely on its ability to deliver tangible improvements to daily life while navigating the complex pressures of Palestinian politics, Israel, and wary Arab patrons, says Ambassador Hafiz.

### Broader Political Context

The primary focus of Hamas, the Palestinian leadership, and Arab governments is securing ironclad guarantees against the annexation of Gaza and the West Bank and on restoring Jerusalem’s status, says Ambassador Hafiz.

However, the diplomatic maneuvering is starkly disconnected from realities on the ground. Israel has already effectively annexed roughly 60 percent of the West Bank through military control and buffer zones. On July 23, the Knesset approved a bill to impose its sovereignty over the West Bank—a move critics call annexation.

This highlights a stark divide: while international powers oppose such measures, Israel is systematically rendering Gaza uninhabitable to spur a Palestinian exodus and expanding West Bank settlements. The United States has supported Israel’s position. Its ambassador recently used biblical terms, Judea and Samaria, for the West Bank, tacitly endorsing Israeli territorial claims.

Ambassador Javed Hafiz notes that despite Tel Aviv’s strong desire, annexation of the Jordan Valley is unlikely now. Gaza’s near-total destruction requires an unprecedented, multi-billion-dollar reconstruction effort involving experts to build a modern urban economy. The process will likely take many years.

The US and Israel may not wish to assign the rebuilding role to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), an organization they have previously sought to undermine. Coordinating among multiple Arab states with differing priorities and foreign policies will be complex.

Ambassador Hafiz suggests two possibilities: either UNRWA is resuscitated, or Egypt, Turkey, and the Gulf states take the lead. A Middle East-led approach may offer greater regional legitimacy, he says. He emphasizes that the Arab world must organize effectively to seize this opportunity to rebuild Gaza and foster long-term stability.

### The Conditional Pathway to Statehood

The plan’s “Explicit Pathway to Statehood” makes statehood a declared goal contingent on two vague conditions: advancing Gaza’s redevelopment and implementing Palestinian Authority reforms. This intentional vagueness—failing to define what “advanced” means or specify the required reforms—creates a mechanism effectively allowing statehood to be indefinitely postponed.

While the plan commits the US to facilitating a final settlement on issues like borders, Jerusalem, and refugees, its launch depends on the success of highly ambitious prior security and governance steps—a sequencing that has historically doomed similar initiatives.

In sum, the plan offers Palestinians a conditional pathway to statehood, requiring them to build a state tailored primarily to Israeli security needs, raising questions about its feasibility and fairness in the long term.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1348319-trumps-blurry-path-to-peace

In the volatile landscape of Middle East politics, two seismic events unfolded in late September, reshaping narratives around Israel’s war on Gaza.

On September 26, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a fiery address to the United Nations General Assembly, vowing to block Palestinian statehood amid walkouts by dozens of delegates. Three days later, on September 29, U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled a 21-point peace plan following a White House meeting with Netanyahu. The plan proposed an end to the Gaza violence, the release of hostages, and a potential pathway to Palestinian statehood.

This new proposal marks a significant shift in Washington’s stance. It contrasts sharply with President Trump’s February suggestion that the U.S. could take over Gaza, build a “Riviera,” and permanently relocate its two million residents. Instead, the plan emphasizes granting Gazans the freedom to choose their own path, with no one forced to leave their homeland. Those wishing to depart would be free to do so and return at their discretion, while a bold initiative encourages Gazans to stay and help shape a brighter future.

The plan also promises that Israel will neither occupy nor annex Gaza, paving the way for redevelopment and self-governance. Importantly, Hamas and similar groups will have no role in Gaza’s future administration, ensuring a focus on stability and progress. A newly formed technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, backed by international experts, would manage essential public services and municipal operations, securing stability and support for the region’s people.

To complement this effort, President Trump committed to spearheading an ambitious economic development plan. He aims to assemble a panel of experts behind the Middle East’s thriving modern cities to guide Gaza’s reconstruction.

Significantly, the plan’s suggestion of a potential path to a future Palestinian state—after Gaza is rebuilt and the Palestinian Authority (PA) undergoes reforms—represents a major departure from the Trump administration’s previous refusal to endorse a two-state solution.

### Conditional Pathway to Statehood

Some analysts argue that the proposed 21-point plan offers a pathway to Palestinian statehood that is so heavily conditional it appears watered down, rendering it largely theoretical. Statehood is presented not as a right or guaranteed outcome, but as a distant reward contingent on meeting a series of vaguely defined and immensely challenging prerequisites.

A transitional government led by a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee will soon take shape to stabilize and rebuild Gaza. This initiative will be guided by the newly established Board of Peace, an international transitional body tasked with setting the strategic framework and securing funding for Gaza’s redevelopment. The board will be chaired by President Trump and could include former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. The committee’s work will continue until the PA completes its reform program.

The plan, developed mainly by U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and expected to be refined further, contains several provisions long demanded by Israel. However, the suggestion of a future Palestinian state conflicts with Netanyahu’s firm stance. In his UN General Assembly speech, Netanyahu stated unequivocally: “Giving the Palestinians a state one mile from Jerusalem after October 7 is like giving Al Qaeda a state one mile from New York City after September 11. This is sheer madness. It’s insane and we won’t do it. Israel will not allow you to shove a terror state down our throats.”

### Diplomatic Tightrope and Core Challenges

These developments highlight a high-stakes diplomatic tightrope between Netanyahu’s unyielding security-first stance and Trump’s deal-oriented vision. By sidelining the PA and declaring zero tolerance for Hamas, the plan risks undermining the most credible foundation for a future Palestinian state.

The foundational steps—creating a de-radicalized, terror-free Gaza under an interim technocratic government—are not mere procedural hurdles but lie at the heart of the quagmire. These demands include the massive undertaking of disarming Hamas and implementing a complex de-radicalization process for a traumatized population. They rely on an untested international force and a long-term peace that does not yet exist.

Mushtaq Shah, Pakistan’s former ambassador to Jordan and Egypt, acknowledges the plan’s selective ambiguity. “It is vague enough to allow for broad interpretation, even manipulation, during implementation. Much remains to be negotiated,” he told The News on Sunday. Despite its shortcomings, Ambassador Shah describes the initiative as a vital lifeline for Palestinians facing relentless violence. “Anything that can help end the bloodshed and allow humanitarian aid to reach people is welcome,” he stresses.

### Key Revisions and Israel’s Security Concerns

During meetings in New York with U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and adviser Jared Kushner, Netanyahu secured key revisions on the disarmament provisions. While the initial draft offered amnesty to Hamas members pledging peaceful coexistence, the updated plan requires them to surrender. It also strengthens language mandating the destruction and cessation of all offensive military capabilities.

The revised plan includes a map outlining three phases of Israeli withdrawal. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will maintain control over most of Gaza after the first withdrawal until an International Stabilization Force arrives to oversee Hamas’s disarmament. After the second phase, Israel will retain more than a third of the Gaza Strip. Even after the final phase of full withdrawal, Israel will preserve a permanent security buffer along Gaza’s perimeter.

Each withdrawal stage is conditioned on milestones tied to demilitarization, effectively allowing Israel to delay its exit until Gaza is deemed secure. Should Hamas delay or reject the plan, it will proceed in terror-free areas, which the IDF will hand over to the International Stabilization Force (ISF).

While the plan proposes new leaders committed to peace, regional security guarantees, and new security forces to replace Hamas, the fundamental question remains: who will govern Gaza?

### Governance and Regional Legitimacy

Ambassador Javed Hafiz argues that while Israel and the U.S. may dismantle Hamas’s visible structure, the group will likely survive as a potent ideological force, much like Hezbollah. The goal of disarmament may, in practice, only reduce its military capacity to manageable levels rather than achieve total elimination.

The alternative—the Mahmoud Abbas-led PA—is widely seen by Gazans as corrupt, illegitimate, and ineffective. Ambassador Hafiz suggests that the most likely, yet fraught, compromise is the installation of a technocratic government under a transitional authority.

President Trump has tapped former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to head Gaza’s interim authority. However, Blair is not trusted by many in the Arab world and the UK due to his controversial role in the Iraq War. This transitional authority will likely include Arab members to provide legitimacy and avoid perceptions of a direct Israeli-American occupation, while Gulf states may fund reconstruction.

Its success will hinge entirely on its ability to deliver tangible improvements to daily life while navigating complex pressures from Palestinian politics, Israel, and wary Arab patrons, says Ambassador Hafiz.

### Annexation Concerns and Ground Realities

The primary focus of Hamas, the Palestinian leadership, and Arab governments remains securing ironclad guarantees against annexation of Gaza and the West Bank and on restoring Jerusalem’s special status, says Ambassador Hafiz.

However, diplomatic maneuvering is starkly disconnected from ground realities. Israel has effectively annexed roughly 60 percent of the West Bank through military control and buffer zones. On July 23, the Knesset approved a bill to impose sovereignty over the West Bank—widely viewed as annexation.

This underscores a stark divide: while international powers oppose such measures, Israel is systematically rendering Gaza uninhabitable to spur a Palestinian exodus and expanding settlements in the West Bank.

The United States has supported Israel’s position. Its ambassador recently used biblical terms—Judea and Samaria—for the West Bank, tacitly endorsing Israeli territorial claims.

Ambassador Hafiz notes that despite Tel Aviv’s strong desire, annexation of the Jordan Valley appears unlikely at present. Gaza’s near-total destruction necessitates an unprecedented, multi-billion-dollar reconstruction effort involving experts to build a modern urban economy—a process likely to take many years.

### Reconstruction Leadership and Challenges

The U.S. and Israel may be reluctant to assign the rebuilding role to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), given past efforts to undermine the organization.

Coordinating among multiple Arab states, each with differing priorities and foreign policies, will be complex. Ambassador Hafiz suggests two possibilities: either UNRWA is revitalized, or Egypt, Turkey, and Gulf states take the lead in reconstruction. A Middle East-led approach may offer greater regional legitimacy.

He emphasizes that the Arab world must unify to seize the opportunity to rebuild Gaza and foster long-term stability.

### Conclusion: A Conditional and Complex Path Forward

The plan’s explicit pathway to statehood makes this a declared goal contingent on two vague conditions: advancing Gaza’s redevelopment and implementing PA reforms. This intentional vagueness—failing to define “advanced” or specify required reforms—creates a mechanism effectively allowing statehood to be indefinitely postponed.

The plan commits the U.S. to facilitating a final settlement on sensitive issues like borders, Jerusalem, and refugees. However, its launch depends on the success of highly ambitious, prior security and governance steps—a sequencing that has historically doomed similar initiatives.

Ultimately, the proposal offers Palestinians a conditional pathway to statehood, requiring them to build a state tailored to Israeli security needs amid complex political realities and challenging ground conditions.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1348319-trumps-blurry-path-to-peace