The release of the 20-point plan of Gaza by President Donald Trump is not a conventional peace plan: it is a roadmap to transactional control. The plan is a bold, security-first statement that is trying to short-circuit decades of unresolvable conflict with a high-stakes prisoner trade, an economic reboot funded by the world community, and, most importantly, a transitional administrative structure led by Trump himself. Although it provides a swift path out of the immediate fighting, this doctrine replaces long-term political legitimacy with short-term, imposed stability, which history indicates is a deadly mistake.
The Board of Peace
The transitional governing system is the centerpiece of the plan. It proposes a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee under an international transitional government, the “Board of Peace,” that is to be headed and chaired by President Donald J Trump.
This proposal is an unprecedented power grab and, in essence, tries to solve the conflict by ousting the existing authority and replacing it with a non-elected, foreign-funded dictate. It is important to note that governance should be supported through the will of the people, and not by an appointed committee whose position is appointed by an external source, irrespective of their good intentions or knowledge in terms of technicality. With the exclusion of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in its present form and any form of local election, the plan may lead to a huge legitimacy vacuum. Any stability established with the Board of Peace would not be interpreted by the Gazan people as self-determination, but occupation by governance, which would be the foundation of resistance in the future.
The Security-for-Amnesty Exchange
The plan begins with a massive, high-speed transaction: an immediate ceasefire followed by the release of all hostages within 72 hours, reciprocated by the release of 250 life-sentence prisoners and 1,700 Gazan detainees. This is a powerful, if desperate, incentive to end the fighting.
Nonetheless, the method used in the proposal to eliminate the extremist groups is also controversial. It offers Hamas members who commit to peace and decommission their weapons amnesty, while offering safe passage to those who wish to leave Gaza. For the plan to work, it demands that the parties view the end of the war purely as a negotiation, not a moral or legal reckoning.
A Conditional and Distant Political Horizon
Even though the plan offers a huge economic development push, such as a professional panel and special economic zone, the political horizon for the Palestinian people remains elusive. The document recognizes the aspiration for self-determination and statehood but attaches multiple, stringent conditions.
Only when Gaza has been demilitarized, the new system of governance established, and the reform program of the Palestinian Authority faithfully implemented, a subjective requirement which can always be postponed by the outside powers, can a pathway to statehood be initiated. This framing validates the priority of this plan: security and stability now, political rights possibly later. By keeping the ultimate goal perpetually conditional, the plan asks Palestinians to trade immediate security improvements and economic relief for the indefinite delay of their deepest political ambition.
Conclusion: Control vs. Consent
The Trump 20-point plan is a milestone in transactional foreign policy. It provides conclusive, enterprising solutions to the short-term humanitarian crisis (full aid, reconstruction) and the fundamental security dilemma (demilitarization, ISF deployment).
However, its biggest weakness is that it assumes that an administrative takeover is the solution to political issues. The establishment of an international body chaired by the US President is an exercise in political theater that will be viewed by much of the world, and especially the region, as a profound lack of respect for local authority. Sustainable peace is created on the basis of mutual agreement and proper representation. By emphasizing foreign domination over local assent, such a plan is likely to terminate the present war, but it almost certainly guarantees that the struggle for legitimate self-governance will continue.
