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