By Nick Ravenshade — October 1, 2025
WASHINGTON / GAZA — President Donald Trump on Monday unveiled a sweeping 20-point plan aimed at ending the nearly two-year war in Gaza, pressing Hamas to disarm and to free hostages within days while proposing a temporary international governance mechanism to stabilize the strip. The White House said the initiative — presented at a high-profile joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — had broad backing from Israel and several Arab and Muslim states, even as diplomats, rights groups and Palestinian leaders warned the plan faces steep political, legal and operational obstacles.
At the core of the proposal is an immediate ceasefire conditioned on “full, immediate and unconditional” release of hostages and a verifiable program of demilitarization for Hamas. The plan calls for the return of living and deceased hostages within 72 hours of a ceasefire, the destruction of Hamas’s offensive capabilities — tunnels, missile stocks and command-and-control — and a prohibition on the group governing Gaza’s civilian institutions. President Trump publicly set a tight timeline, warning Hamas it had “three or four days” to accept the terms or face what he described as “a very sad end.”
Perhaps the most politically fraught element is the White House’s proposal for a temporary “Board of Peace” to oversee Gaza’s governance during a transitional phase. Reuters reporting and the White House announcement said the board would be international and technocratic in character and would include prominent figures — with Trump placing himself at the head and former British prime minister Tony Blair named as a senior member in public commentary — charged with coordinating humanitarian relief, rebuilding and security guarantees while the Palestinian Authority (or another negotiated Palestinian body) prepared for long-term governance. That aspect of the plan drew immediate controversy.
Israeli leaders applauded the outline, with Mr. Netanyahu publicly endorsing the White House blueprint and stressing that any withdrawal or change in on-the-ground posture would hinge on verifiable disarmament and security guarantees. Netanyahu’s endorsement was important politically: it signalled Israel’s willingness — at least rhetorically — to bind its military actions to a diplomatic pathway that purports to secure the release of hostages, a top domestic political priority. Yet Israeli commentators and some cabinet figures cautioned that operational details were thin and that Israel would insist on maintaining security prerogatives in sensitive border and maritime areas.
Hamas’s initial public response was cautious: the Islamist group said it would study the proposal internally and consult with other Palestinian factions before issuing a formal response. Qatar and Egypt, which have long acted as mediators between Hamas and external parties, were reported to have received the plan’s text and to be conveying elements to Hamas negotiators in Gaza and Doha. Diplomats noted the practical difficulties of rapid communication with Gaza, where infrastructure and crossings remain severely constrained, complicating any immediate, coordinated reply from the strip’s leadership.
International reaction beyond Israel and the mediators was mixed. Several Arab states and a number of predominantly Muslim countries publicly welcomed the White House effort as a possible pathway to an immediate ceasefire and more predictable humanitarian flows; other governments and international institutions urged caution, highlighting legal and normative concerns. United Nations officials and human-rights organisations stressed that any plan must protect civilian lives, adhere to international humanitarian law, and include credible monitoring and accountability mechanisms. Critics said putting Western political leaders — including a sitting U.S. president and Tony Blair, a figure controversial in the Arab world — at the head of Gaza’s temporary governance was deeply problematic and risked inflaming rather than soothing regional tensions.
Humanitarian agencies made blunt, immediate warnings. United Nations relief officials and medical organisations said that while any deal that halts fighting and opens safe, sustained corridors for aid is desperately needed, the current humanitarian picture in Gaza — mass displacement, collapsed health services, and acute shortages of food, fuel and medicine — means trust in rapid demilitarization and immediate reconstruction is low. Agencies emphasised that a ceasefire tied to hostage returns must be accompanied by unfettered access for independent monitors and aid convoys if it is to meaningfully alleviate civilian suffering.
Legal and diplomatic experts raised immediate questions about the plan’s feasibility. Key obstacles include Hamas’s willingness to disarm and surrender its command structure, the legal authority for an externally imposed transitional administration, and the practicalities of verifying denuclearization-style guarantees for small arms and tunnel systems in a densely populated urban environment. Some analysts also flagged that any U.S. attempt to place its president at the helm of an interim governance board could be perceived as a form of external occupation, complicating relations with regional capitals and with Palestinians who view independent sovereignty as non-negotiable.
The plan’s mechanics leave significant work to negotiators. Officials from the White House and allied governments acknowledged publicly that many details — the configuration of verification teams, the composition and legal mandate of the Board of Peace, the role of the Palestinian Authority, timelines for elections or institutional reforms, and the sequencing of aid and reconstruction — remained to be hammered out. That admitted vagueness was one reason many diplomats responded cautiously: a framework may open a diplomatic channel, they said, but it will succeed only if it dovetails with on-the-ground realities and with guarantees from multiple guarantor states and international bodies.
There are immediate security risks to the approach. If Hamas rejects the plan — or accepts it domestically but faces internal dissension — the short timeline and the president’s public ultimatum raise the prospect of renewed, intensified military operations by Israel, which has warned it will “finish the job” if Hamas does not comply. Conversely, a rushed attempt to impose governance changes without local consent could drive some armed elements underground, fragment command structures in ways that complicate disarmament and impede stabilisation. Military planners and regional analysts cautioned that sequencing disarmament, hostage returns and the restoration of civilian services is a delicate engineering problem that cannot be solved by rhetoric alone.
Economically and logistically, the notion of a rapid “New Gaza” reconstruction is daunting. Gaza’s infrastructure — ports, power, water and hospitals — has been extensively damaged by sustained bombardments and ground operations. Rebuilding at scale would require secure, sustained supply lines, long-term energy solutions and major international financing. Development specialists say that without concrete, multi-year funding commitments and institutional capacity building tied to transparent procurement and labour standards, reconstruction efforts risk being slow, corruptible and ineffective — problems that would stoke political resentment rather than durable peace.
The geopolitical calculus is delicate. European capitals and regional powers such as Egypt, Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia will be decisive in shaping any implementation. Some Arab governments welcomed the plan as a pragmatic step that could secure hostage releases and an end to immediate suffering; others warned that perceived Western control of Gaza’s future would be unacceptable. Moscow and Tehran, meanwhile, expressed scepticism of a U.S.-led initiative and cautioned against measures that fail to address Palestinian rights and long-term political sovereignty. That fragmented diplomatic landscape means any implementation will likely be incremental, negotiated, and subject to shifting regional priorities.
For now, the immediate political test is whether Hamas will accept a plan that demands disarmament and rapid hostage returns — conditions the group has historically resisted — or whether mediators can craft a formula that preserves the dignity and political future of Palestinians in Gaza while satisfying Israel’s security demands and the political needs of its backers. The coming days are likely to see intense shuttle diplomacy in Doha, Cairo and Jerusalem, as well as discreet contacts between Washington and senior Gazan figures. How those conversations proceed — and whether they can bridge the gap between headline language and operational reality — will determine if the proposal becomes a genuine pathway out of war or another high-level framework that fails to stop the bloodshed.
— Reporting by Nick Ravenshade. Sources: Reuters; Associated Press; Al Jazeera; CBS News; Politico; Council on Foreign Relations; statements from the White House and Israeli government; commentary from humanitarian organisations.
Photo: The White House, Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Comments ()