Romaan Basit, UK
At first glance, the twenty-point peace plan unveiled yesterday at the White House offers a sliver of hope that everyone – or at least everyone opposing genocide – has been waiting for. But if you read between the lines, the deal isn’t as favourable for Palestinians as it seems.
After nearly two years of brutality claiming the lives of over 66,000 Palestinians, the proposal promises to put an end to this bloodshed. An immediate ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli troops, and the release of hostages and prisoners are all conditions laid out in this proposal. Palestine is even set to be granted statehood. What’s not to like?
Pictures of Netanyahu shaking Trump’s hand on this have been circulating online. And on the surface, it sure seems like a blueprint for peace – or, at the very least, a step in the right direction.
But if we pull back the curtain, even slightly, things don’t seem so promising.
For starters, Netanyahu has already dismissed one of the key parts of the deal: the eventual statehood of Palestine. He stated openly that Israel did “absolutely not” agree to this clause. (“Netanyahu says he did not agree to Palestinian state as part of Trump Gaza plan, and IDF will remain ‘in most of territory’”, www.theguardian.com, 30 September 2025) This is not surprising. For decades, Netanyahu has been clear that he opposes any form of Palestinian sovereignty. His vision has always been that Israel must maintain permanent control over all territory west of the Jordan River. In other words, he rejects the very heart of the two-state solution.
The same problem arises with troop withdrawal. The plan promises that Israeli forces will pull back, but only once an international force is deployed. Netanyahu, however, has already contradicted this by insisting that the Israeli army “will remain in most of the territory.” (Ibid.) Added to this is the clause about an Israeli “security perimeter presence” until Gaza is “properly secure from any resurgent terror threat.” (Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan in full, www.bbc.co.uk, 30 September 2025)
This phrase sounds reasonable at first, but it is dangerously vague. What does “properly secure” mean? Who gets to decide? In practice, it could allow Israel to keep troops and create a permanent buffer zone inside Gaza, taking away even more of the little land Palestinians still hold.
There is also the issue of sovereignty itself. Even if the plan appears to promise statehood, what kind of state is it? A state without control over its own borders and security is not truly independent. The fine print of this plan suggests something more symbolic, as in reality, this is not actual freedom.
And then there is Hamas. Trump and Netanyahu have both given them an ultimatum: accept the terms or Israel will “finish the job.” (“Gaza latest: Trump gives Hamas new deadline to respond to 20-point peace deal”, www.news.sky.com, 30 September 2025; “Trump gives Hamas ‘three or four days’ to respond to Gaza peace plan or face ‘a very sad end’”, www.theguardian.com, 30 September 2025) But what the plan offers them is not a genuine political solution. It is, in essence, a political surrender. Hamas is told to hand over its power, yet the future that Palestinians are promised in return remains subject to Israel. The balance of power is entirely one-sided.
This is the iceberg. On the surface, the plan appears promising, offering a ceasefire, prisoner release, and statehood. But beneath the surface lies the cold reality of Netanyahu’s hardline politics and the unresolved grievances that have fuelled this genocide for far too long.
Unsurprisingly, the international community has largely welcomed the proposal. After almost two years of relentless killing, people across the world are desperate to see the bloodshed end. But a peace plan that depends on Netanyahu – who has spent his career blocking the very idea of a two-state solution – is not really a plan. It is wishful thinking.
