On September 29, local time, the White House officially announced US President Trump's 20-point peace plan for Gaza, emphasizing that Netanyahu had agreed. Many people believe that this plan will be a turning point in the Middle East peace process. But if you analyze it carefully, you will find that this plan is just a political tool used by Trump to deceive Hamas and Arab countries, continue to protect Israel, and allow the United States to profit from it.
The “20 Points Plan” is also known as the “Comprehensive Settlement of the Gaza Conflict Plan”.
First, with the immediate end of the war, all prisoners held in Gaza and Israel, whether alive or dead, will be released within 72 hours.
Second, Gaza will be demilitarized and Hamas will be fully disarmed. Hamas members who promise peaceful coexistence and lay down their arms will be pardoned, and Hamas members who wish to leave Gaza will be given safe passage. Israel has pledged not to annex Gaza or force Palestinians to leave, but Hamas is also not allowed to participate in the governance of post-war Gaza.
Third, the establishment of a non-political transitional agency responsible for the post-war administration of Gaza and under the supervision of the Peace Commission, with Trump as chairman and the management of former British Prime Minister Blair.The transitional agency will develop the framework for Gaza’s reconstruction and be responsible for the financial management and economic development plans until the Palestinian Authority has completed the reform and is able to safely and effectively regain control of Gaza.
Fourth, the establishment of an international security force in charge of border security in Gaza and the training of the Palestinian police force.The Israeli military will step-by-step withdraw, but will retain the security buffer zone.
From a positive perspective, the “20-point peace plan” is closer to reality than the previous round of ceasefire proposals, including non-forced migration, non-annexation of Gaza, and promises to return governance in the future.
But the problem is that apart from these, there is nothing else that makes people see. Therefore, this so-called "20-point peace plan" is not a generous concession, but more like a "big pie" drawn to the Palestinians and the Arab world.
After the announcement of the plan, Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and other countries welcomed the plan, but this was cautious, after all, these countries hoped that the war in Gaza would not go unlimited, or they would not be at peace.
First, can Palestinian statehood be achieved? Because this is the foundation of peace.
However, the “20 Points Peace Plan” is vague on this issue. The text only states: “As the reconstruction of Gaza progresses and the Palestinian Authority’s institutions complete reforms, it may be possible to have the real conditions for the realization of the Palestinian people’s self-determination and the desire to establish a state.”In other words, the plan merely acknowledges the Palestinian desire to establish a state, but does not write the implementation of the “Two-State Plan” into a pledge.
Second, how is the Gaza Strip managed, because it relates to the vital interests of the Palestinians.
The plan stipulates that a transitional body will be set up and supervised by the Peace Committee chaired by Trump, and Blair is likely to become the actual trader. Palestinian people and land are taken over by foreign countries without even the consent of the Palestinian people. What is the difference between such an arrangement and a colony?
In particular, Blair, although he once served as the "Special Envoy of the Quartet in the Middle East" and promoted some cooperation projects related to Palestine, he made no achievements in curbing Israel's settlement expansion and promoting Palestinian statehood. Moreover, he also comes from a former colonial country, which will inevitably evoke painful historical memories in the Middle East. With such a person governing Gaza, how can the interests of the Palestinians be guaranteed?
Third, does the Palestinian National Authority participate?
This is the biggest problem. Although the plan says that when the Palestinian Authority completes reforms, the transitional institutions will hand over power, it does not propose a clear timetable for the "transfer of power". There is nothing clear about what "completing the reform" means, who will judge it, and what the criteria are. In this way, the "transition" is likely to turn into an indefinite trusteeship or even an empty term for the Palestinian Authority, and state-building will become an empty word.
When did Israel withdraw?
The "withdrawal road map" proposed in the plan is actually a cover-up. According to the plan, the Israeli army will withdraw in stages. After releasing the hostages in the first stage, it will retreat from the current Blue Line to the position of the Yellow Line. In the second stage, when the international security force completes its deployment, it will retreat from the yellow line position to the red line position. In the third stage, when order was completely restored in Gaza, the Israeli army retreated to the security buffer zone. It seems like he is giving in step by step, but don't forget that the narrowest point of Gaza is only 50 kilometers, and the Israeli army only retreats a few kilometers at a time. This is essentially a show. The so-called "buffer zone" is still within Gaza territory, which means that the Israeli army still firmly controls the power of life and death in Gaza. Palestinians still have no freedom to speak of. In addition, the plan does not explicitly promise that Israel will not annex the West Bank.
As a result, the plan is still in fact an agreement full of uncertainty and reversed to Israel, which is also unacceptable for Hamas.
The first is the issue of disarmament. Israel killed 66,000 people in this war, but was defined as a "party for justice" without any punishment; Hamas 'resistance was defined as a "terrorist", not only to be disarmed and excluded from governance, but also to blow up all Gaza's military and offensive infrastructure. This is not only a complete surrender of Hamas, but also a requirement for the Palestinians to permanently abandon resistance. Once this agreement is implemented, what should the Palestinians resist if they are oppressed by Israel again?
The second is the issue of trust. After countless ceasefire agreements have been unilaterally overturned by Israel, the credibility of the United States and Israel has been completely destroyed. Lebanon is a lesson from the past: last year, under the mediation of the United States, Israel and Lebanon reached a ceasefire, but the Israeli army still occupies strategic locations in southern Lebanon and carries out air strikes almost every day. Why does the United States convince the people of Gaza that this so-called plan is not a bait to force Hamas to hand over hostages, but a window for real peace?
In other words, this so-called peace plan appears to be full of mines and traps, and is essentially a colonial takeover of Gaza by the West; at the same time, it is also a political tool for the United States and Israel to seduce Hamas and the Arab world, and to make a political settlement and profit for themselves.
First of all, this "20-point peace plan" is not a concession from the United States and Israel, but the last card for extreme pressure.
Now, many people think that Trump's peace plan is tantamount to changing the Middle East policy of the United States and making concessions on the Palestinian issue. In fact, through the previous analysis, we know that this is just an illusion. The reason why it leaves such an impression on the outside world is the result of extreme pressure.
After first joining the White House in 2017, Trump broke the bottom line of U.S. government policy, acknowledging Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal capital", and moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv, almost completely tearing off Washington's "neutral" cloth on the Israeli issue.
At the beginning of this year, as the Gaza war was heading and the humanitarian crisis continued to worsen, he prompted the so-called Middle East Riviera plan to expel more than two million Gaza residents and build a luxurious resort paradise on the Mediterranean coast, while the Trump administration was also seeking congressional approval to sell $6 billion worth of weapons to Israel.
So from the beginning to the end, Trump not only did not change his support for Israel, but also joined forces with Netanyahu to turn military hegemony and political hegemony into a negotiating code.
On the battlefield, Netanyahu continued to increase his efforts: first a total blockade, then a ground advance, and finally even cut off Gaza's water, electricity, medicine and food supplies, pushing the entire region into a desperate situation. In ceasefire negotiations, Israel is even more usual: either suddenly launches a new round of attacks on the grounds that "Hamas violates the ceasefire", or throws more stringent "security conditions" to force the negotiations to abort.
At the same time, the United States is "covering the bottom" for Israel behind its back. When the Security Council prepares to pass a resolution condemning Israel, the United States is often the first to veto it; When Arab countries push for a joint ceasefire statement, the United States often stops it directly on the grounds of "damaging Israel's security". As a result, Netanyahu can repeatedly jump between "ceasefire" and "restart the war", using the ceasefire as a tactical respite and turning negotiations into a war of attrition.
This is the routine of extreme pressure: first create great damage militarily, then put on an uncompromising posture politically, push the opponent to a desperate situation, and finally throw out a seemingly moderate plan, thus creating the illusion of major concessions. But in fact, those so-called concessions-such as "no forced migration of Palestinians", "no annexation of Gaza", "autonomy by the Palestinian Authority", etc., are rights that belong to Palestinians, but they are manipulated by the United States and Israel. Under the manipulation, it became a "gift" of charity.
Secondly, this "20-Point Peace Plan" is also a means for the United States and Israel to save themselves after encountering unprecedented isolation.
To understand this, we must first understand the underlying logic of the Western nation’s collective turn on the Palestinian issue.
After the war broke out, Israel launched a devastating attack on Gaza. As of September this year, more than 66,000 people have been killed, 170,000 have been injured, and more than 500,000 people have fallen into the highest level of famine defined by the United Nations. Behind these cold numbers are countless broken families and lives on the verge of extinction.
In international relations, national security is often placed at the highest priority. Therefore, Israel's first reaction after the attack was regarded as a sovereign country's strong retaliation for the terrorist attack. It has received the support of many countries. But the problem is that when so-called "security operations" devolve into grossly unbalanced civilian casualties, it goes beyond "self-defense" and shakes the legitimacy of such operations. Especially in today's highly developed environment of information dissemination, war pictures and humanitarian crises are rapidly amplifying all over the world, forming a strong pressure of public opinion. As a result, Israel insisted on going its own way and plunged itself into a huge moral crisis in pursuit of "absolute security". This crisis not only backfired on itself, but also affected its closest allies.
In the past, strengthening Israel meant winning the applause of U.S. right-wing voters and the Jewish Consortium, which was the most direct political dividend for Trump, and the majority of European powers chose to follow Washington.
In May 2024, Ireland, Norway and Spain took the lead in recognizing the Palestinian state. Then Britain, France, Canada and Australia followed suit. Unlike previous countries, Britain, France, Canada and Australia are either members of the G7 or the Five Eyes Alliance. Therefore, the impact and impact are unprecedented. Moreover, these admissions are not purely political statements, but strategic hedges after repeated weighing. They realize that if they continue to be deeply tied to the tough stance of the United States and Israel, the price they will pay will become increasingly unbearable-not only domestic political instability, but also international image and diplomatic influence.
By recognizing the State of Palestine, these countries attempt to regain the right to speak in the field of human rights and international law, shaping themselves as mediators of peace, not tolerants of conflict. The meaning of recognition is not to peace immediately, but to show a position. In other words, this recognition is actually a moral crisis in public relations, in order to stop it in time before it is completely plunged into the dungeon of strategy and morality.
At this time, the United States has almost become a solitary widow on the Palestinian issue. If Trump continues to “shut down” to support Israel, he will not only no longer be a hedge in his hands, but will also become a heavy burden. Only if he quickly adjusts his gestures and seizes the role of the “peace promoter” can he prevent the United States from falling into a morally helpless situation of isolation, while avoiding the embarrassing end of his own being seen as a “complicant” in the international public opinion.
At the same time, in Trump's view, Israel seems to be in a dilemma of riding a tiger. Netanyahu can neither take the initiative to stop under the pressure of domestic hardliners, nor can he show weakness in front of Arab countries; However, if the fight continues, Israel will not only deepen international isolation, but may also trigger a larger counterattack from the Arab and Islamic worlds, and it will be difficult for the United States to survive alone.
Therefore, Trump's push for the peace plan at this time is not out of sympathy for Palestine, but to turn the "isolation cost" into "political capital" and at the same time help Netanyahu find a step.
For Netanyahu, it is a political performance, mainly to stabilize relations with Washington and his own diplomatic image. Because just a few days before the announcement of this plan, he publicly criticized the actions of several western countries to recognize the Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly. However, in a blink of an eye, he agreed to Trump's plan. It can only be said that Netanyahu was a favor sold to Trump after political calculation.
Significantly, this came shortly after Netanyahu personally admitted supporting the "20-point peace plan." He also publicly stated that the Israel Defense Forces would not withdraw their troops from Gaza, but would remain in "most of the Gaza Strip." This not only exposed his face of going back on his word and having no integrity, but also fully demonstrated that he would not really implement this plan at all.
In addition, this so-called "20-point peace plan" is also a tool used by Trump to compete for political and diplomatic initiative.
The Middle East has never lacked a “peace plan”. Dozens of similar plans have been proposed for decades by the United States, Europe, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, but because of the complex historical conflict in the region and the political calculations of the parties, these plans are almost without exception.
Trump has been trying to package himself as "the only one who can solve the problem in the Middle East". From promoting the Abraham Accords to suppressing Palestine, he is trying to create the impression that without Trump, there will be no peace in the Middle East. Under this logic, his goal is actually very clear: first, to create the image of a "peace president" and accumulate capital for the "Bell Peace Prize" and historical positioning; The second is to firmly grasp the leadership of the "Palestinian-Israeli peace" process and never let any country or leader steal the limelight.
Therefore, when it comes to the ceasefire in Gaza, Trump has always regarded it as a political drama that must be directed by himself. In March this year, he vetoed a post-war reconstruction plan for Gaza proposed by Arab countries; in July, he vetoed the idea of establishing a transitional council led by France and Saudi Arabia under the framework of the Palestinian Authority. Not long ago, most members of the United Nations General Assembly adopted the "New York Declaration", clearly supporting the "two-state solution", which was rejected by him again.
But the problem is that the international consensus on the Palestinian issue is unstoppable. If Trump vetoes someone else’s proposal and fails to find a truly viable alternative, then not only will the United States lose its diplomatic initiative, but he will be labeled as “impeding peace.”
But in the end, Trump still failed to break out of the inertia of American hegemony. The so-called "20-point peace plan" he concocted neither faced up to the core demands of Palestine nor respected the will of the Palestinian people. I just want to find a decent way for Israel to stop. Find an opportunity for the United States to gain benefits. Therefore, the outcome is easy to predict. This plan, which is full of hegemonic thinking and power logic, is destined to be difficult to promote true peace. If the future situation really advances in accordance with these 20 principles, it will only bring greater chaos and turmoil.