When the U.S. dropped out a 21-month ceasefire in Gaza, the air in the entire Middle East became somewhat congested.
The Times of Israel recently broke the news that this draft agreement, known as the "Blackjack Plan", has been placed on the table in Netanyahu's office.
And the worst thing inside Israel is really coming: the U.S.-led plan not only requires phased withdrawal, the release of hostages, the resumption of governance in Gaza, but also for the first time explicitly supports Palestinians staying in Gaza and reserves space for future state-building.
In a word, if Israel wants a ceasefire, it will have to make “painful and significant” concessions.
This is not a test motion on the negotiating table, but a precise blow to the Middle East pattern.
U.S. “21 Point Plan”: Is it time to stop?
The "21 Point Plan" looks like a ceasefire agreement, in fact, like a geopolitical document.
It not only demanded that Israel “shut down” militarily, but also politically stepped into Israel’s most disgusting minefields.
Withdrawal and ceasefire.
The calculation of the United States is clear: Hamas will release people, Israel will withdraw its troops, and both sides will take a step back.
The problem, however, is that Israel does not step back easily.
The withdrawal is phased, but the United States clearly demands that Israel "cannot leave ground troops behind" and only retain border monitoring rights.
This means that the Israeli army's control over the hinterland of Gaza will be completely emptied.
While excluded from the control of Gaza, its “sense of presence” has not been completely eliminated.
Israel is concerned that this is not a variation in the recognition of Hamas’ status, and no one dares to answer it positively.
Even more painful for Israel is the return of the Palestinian authority.
The United States hopes that the Pakistani authorities will gradually take over the executive power of Gaza and marginalize Hamas.
However, the Israeli military and intelligence agencies believe that this may be "changing the soup without changing the medicine."
On the one hand, demanding the dismantling of all armed groups and on the other hand allowing the Palestinian authorities to enter, who can guarantee that they will not be infiltrated by Hamas?
"Demilitarization" sounds great. When it is implemented, who will check it? How to check? What should I do if I can't find it?
These hot potatoes, the United States did not give an answer.
The most controversial of the plan is that the United States for the first time proposed to reserve space for a “future Palestinian state.”
While Trump’s team has avoided talking about the “two-country solution,” this expression of “peaceful coexistence” has blown up Israeli right-wing politicians.
Most importantly, the United States also demanded that Israel suspend the expansion of settlements on the West Bank.
This directly touched the nerve line of Netanyahu's government-he publicly promised that he would "not give up the Jewish nation's right to the Holy Land".
Now, if you want to cease fire, you have to freeze settlements; To stabilize the country, we have to carry the United States hard.
This dilemma is reminiscent of a saying: You can't have your cake and eat it too, but you can't even drink soup.
Netanyahu’s crossroads: votes or war?
If the "21 Point Plan" makes it difficult for Israel to reach an international level, At home, it simply plunged Netanyahu into a quagmire of dilemma.
On September 27th, crowds surged on the streets of Jerusalem.
Not a festival, not a celebration, but another wave of protests demanding a ceasefire from the government.
The slogan reads, “War has killed too many mother’s tears.”
This is not sensationalism, this is reality.
The feeling of war fatigue in Israeli society is already visible.
Especially after the Israeli military killed 368 people – the highest record in 20 years.
Behind this figure is a family crackdown and a continuing decline in government confidence.
Netanyahu’s ruling coalition is also beginning to break.
The far-right ministry is unwavering and firmly opposes any withdrawal of troops.
Secretary of Defense Garant warned in private: “Take it back and the Israeli economy will collapse.”
Energy prices have risen, foreign trade costs have risen, and international oil prices have risen by 12% due to the war in Gaza, making Israel’s import bills worse day by day.
Netanyahu at this time, like a man holding a boiler with boiling water, could not pour out the water, nor put down the boiler.
What is even more difficult is the sense of isolation on the international stage.
As of now, 75 countries have recognized the Palestinian state, and at the UN General Assembly, Israeli delegations have repeatedly faced withdrawal protests.
This is not only a diplomatic humiliation, but also a clear signal that the world is no longer willing to listen to Israel's unilateral stories.
Hamas’s response was also “smart”: it declared “for every killing of an Israeli soldier, one hostage will be released.”
This seems to be a cruel strategy, but it is actually a way to transform the negotiating code.
For Netanyahu, this means not only the moral pressure of military action, but also being pushed into a corner politically.
In short, if we continue to fight, we will face domestic anti-war voices and international condemnation.
Accepting the "21 Point Agreement" may lose the right-wing basic disk.
Between voting and fighting, Netanyahu has to choose.
Whatever the choice is, it means some sort of “painful concessions.”
Hamas's calculations: the sober abacus behind a vague response
If Israel is making a "painful choice", then Hamas is playing with "strategic ambiguity."
It is neither completely rejected nor explicitly accepted, giving all parties an illusion of being "talkable", but always not allowing the situation to really heat down.
Hamas has released 40 hostages, a “signal of goodwill” it has released.
But the premise is: the Israeli army must withdraw first.
In other words, Hamas does not accept the rule of "releasing people first and withdrawing troops later", let alone unilateral disarmament.
Its logic is: "We are not terrorists, we are self-defenders."
This statement, although unstoppable, has caused resonance within some Arab countries.
Qatar is currently the most active mediator.
The United States hopes that Qatar will pressure Hamas to accept the plan, but the Qatar emir has made it clear that “the rights of the Palestinian people must be safeguarded.”
This sounds like a diplomatic decree, but actually means: you can’t just let Hamas take up arms without solving the issue of Palestinian statehood.
Iran is more direct, with the Revolutionary Guards saying, “If Israel attacks Gaza, it will face a comprehensive war in the region.”
This equals strengthening Hamas and making Israel’s military options more passive.
And in this political game, the most neglected are the ordinary people in Gaza.
At present, 700,000 people in Gaza City are out of food, a piece of bread sells for $50 in the black market, and hospitals have closed most operating rooms due to fuel shortages.
More than 750,000 people fled to the south, and the cholera outbreak began to spread.
These numbers are not news backgrounds, but real hell.
No matter how "principled" Hamas is, it cannot escape the fact that civilians in Gaza are being consumed by this war.
Hamas’ vague response, therefore, is actually a tactical retardation: with hostages, with suffering, with sympathy, with vague negotiation space.
But can it really last to the end? or is such a “resistance” really worth it?
The answer, I am afraid, is not even clear to Hamas itself.
Endless, unstable peace: who will guarantee that the future will not repeat itself?
At present, this "blackjack plan" seems to be a shot in the arm, but it is actually a challenge book full of risks.
Plan well written, agreement can also be signed, but execution is hard wounded.
For example, how should the international peacekeeping forces be formed? who will be deployed? who will be responsible for overseeing the Gaza border?
This “peace on paper” cannot withstand a sudden attack.
Restoration of funds.
The U.S. says it is expected to require $50 billion, but Saudi Arabia and the UAE promise only 10 percent.
This gap is not a small number.
Without money, what about rebuilding? Without reconstruction, what peace can we talk about?
And the "brotherhood" between the United States and Israel is not so hard.
The Trump administration has also been exposed behind the scenes that it may want to exchange Israel's rare earth mining rights through a ceasefire agreement.
This "transactional ceasefire" is a political adventure for Israel and a geopolitical gamble for the Middle East.
Netanyahu obviously played "delaying tactics" and delayed the decision until mid-October on the grounds of "studying terms".
In this game, regional players such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, Turkey each have a calculator.
Saudi Arabia hopes that peace will contribute to its “Vision 2030.”
Turkey, on the other hand, intends to speak with “moral authority” and even threatens to close NATO bases.
These countries, no one really cares how to write the "21 point plan", they are more concerned about: this situation, can they even a piece.
The fighting in Gaza may eventually die, but peace is not an automatic renewal service
A “painful and significant” concession may really be in exchange for a paper ceasefire, but it’s far from the end.
If the establishment of a Palestinian state is still far away, if the humanitarian crisis is not overcome, if peace is only a temporary compromise, then the next conflict is only a matter of time.
The U.S. “21 Point Plan” may be an opportunity, but it is not the answer.
In the Middle East, there has never been a shortage of plan, but there is a shortage of trust, execution and real political courage.
The tank can stop, but the aggro doesn't dissipate by itself.
Peace needs not only signature, but fulfillment.