President Trump’s Peace proposal lacks practical solutions

It is appreciated that President Trump has announced a peace proposal after meeting Netanyahu. He announced a twenty-point proposal covering several aspects, but with a warning that if Hamas rejects his proposal, he will support Netanyahu to manage Gaza as per his way.

The instant reaction was positive and welcomed by several global leaders and countries. Certainly, with the scary situation in Gaza, everyone is worried and wants to stop further bloodshed. When President Trump announced his peace plan and also announced that he had convinced Netanyahu on this peace plan, the world reaction should have been positive and supportive.

However, after studying the peace proposal, it was noticed that the proposal lacks a lot and is impractical. It protects Israeli interests at the cost of Palestinians. For instance, the proposal demands dismantling Hamas, disarming Hamas, and diminishing Hamas’ war capabilities immediately. It also demands that Hamas’ weapons manufacturing capabilities also have to diminish completely. When will Israel withdraw its forces from Palestine? Will Israel withdraw from all occupied territories and revert back to its original borders of 1948 or its borders of 1967 after the Arab-Israeli War, when Israel grabbed a lot of Arab land?

The proposal is also not clear on after the ceasefire what exactly will happen and what the Israeli plans are. Post ceasefire, Israeli presence in any form, for security purposes or defense purposes, in Palestinian lands should not be accepted by Hamas. Did Israel want to remain in charge of security and keep its presence in Palestine?

Another aspect was the role of former British PM Tony Blair, which was not welcomed, as his role in Iraq was criminal and not accepted by any civilized world. He is still facing war crime charges in the UK.

President Trump is struggling for the Nobel Peace Prize and appointed him as a key leader in the post-ceasefire council on Palestine. Was this consulted with stakeholders?

An agreement between two parties is always drafted with the consultations of both sides, but the Trump proposal is unilaterally drafted or with the consultation of one side—Netanyahu. Palestinians were ignored and were not taken on board.

Netanyahu has been expressing his view that he did not agree to a Palestinian state as part of Trump’s Gaza plan, and the IDF will remain ‘in most of the territory.’ His remarks suggest that the two-state solution is no longer a viable option, and he is instead focused on finding alternative solutions that ensure Israel’s security and dominance in the region. He has also expressed concerns about the feasibility of a two-state solution, suggesting that a Palestinian state would pose a significant threat to Israel’s security. He referenced the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, stating that a Palestinian state would lead to another such incident. In an interview with Israel’s Channel 14, Netanyahu suggested that Saudi Arabia could create a Palestinian state within its own territory, given its vast land resources.

The proposal has the following harmful effects for Palestinians:

By excluding Hamas from any role without a clear, legitimate Palestinian alternative, we risk leaving civilians without accountable governance, undermining Palestinian self-determination.

By offering safe passage for those who wish to leave, it could lead to coerced displacement, stigmatizing and fragmenting Palestinian society. That risks long-term demographic and social harm. If tying humanitarian relief, reconstruction, and a phased Israeli withdrawal to political preconditions (i.e., reforms, security guarantees, etc.) risks prolonging suffering if conditions aren’t quickly met. Humanitarian needs are immediate; conditionality can become de facto punishment.

The clauses asking Palestinians to forgo legal action at international forums or to accept amnesty could deny victims legal recourse for alleged war crimes and human rights violations.

The mechanics for ensuring civilian safety during disarmament, movement, reconstruction, and demilitarization are not spelled out; the plan assumes security guarantees that are historically difficult to enforce.

By imposing a short deadline (“three or four days” reported) for acceptance, it creates negotiation-by-ultimatum dynamics that push Hamas toward rejection or a performative “study” and feed escalation rather than buy-in. Creating a stabilization force led or brokered by external actors requires regional consensus, clear legal authority, and logistics—all hard to assemble quickly, especially amid active fighting.

Although several international actors praised the idea of a ceasefire, they warned the plan is unbalanced, could entrench impunity, and lacks mechanisms to protect civilians and ensure accountability. European and Arab leaders are cautious—while some Arab states urged Hamas to consider the plan, many Palestinian officials and human rights actors say it’s biased and coercive, and some EU figures warned against sidelining Palestinian political rights.

The UN and aid organizations are alarmed by conditionality—humanitarian agencies worry conditionalized reconstruction will slow aid and reconstruction and create competing political priorities.

Israeli internal reaction: Netanyahu backed the plan publicly, but far-right and pro-settler factions criticized concessions or the idea of a transitional authority; domestic political fragmentation means Israel may struggle to implement aspects of the plan without internal compromise.

In the U.S.—polarized partisan response:Some Republicans and Trump allies applauded a “decisive” approach; Democrats and many progressive groups denounced the plan as rewarding ethnic cleansing or neglecting Palestinian rights. Bipartisan divisions complicate long-term U.S. credibility as an honest broker.

Hamas’s early feedback and concerns: Hamas said it would study the proposal but has already described it as biased toward Israel. Core objections likely: forced disarmament, exclusion from governance, amnesty-for-waiving-legal-rights, and external imposition of authority are red lines for Hamas and its internal constituency. Those would be deal-breakers unless accompanied by ironclad guarantees and Palestinian consent mechanisms.

Way forward:

The proposal offers a possible ceasefire pathway, but its heavy preconditions, exclusion of Palestinian agency, vague transitional mechanics, and reliance on ultimatums make it politically fragile and potentially harmful to Palestinians if implemented without broad Palestinian consent and robust humanitarian safeguards. It is strongly recommended that Palestinians’ genuine concerns must be addressed. Scholars, intellectuals, and unbiased professionals must be consulted, and the proposal must be redrafted to keep both sides’ interests and safeguards.

President Trump and Netanyahu both have lost credibility by attacking Iran while nuclear talks were ongoing and attacking Qatar on a peace negotiating team.The agreement must be guaranteed by reputable, impartial, and powerful leaders, who can safeguard the interests of both sides equally.