Peace or illusion? Ex-diplomats question credibility of US strategy in Gaza

Former envoys say Trump’s Gaza plan ignores Palestinian statehood and bends to Netanyahu’s demands

Mushfiq Ahmed 

KARACHI, Pakistan (MNTV) — The Trump plan for Gaza hailed by some as a breakthrough is, in the words of Pakistan’s former envoys, a fragile arrangement riddled with unanswered questions — from disarmament to reconstruction — leaving Palestinians once again at the mercy of half-measures and vague promises.

Ambassador Javed Hafeez said the central lesson of decades of Israeli–Palestinian negotiations was that agreements mean little without credible enforcement. “The essence of all such agreements is the implementation,” he said, citing the Oslo Accords and last January’s ceasefire. Such things are agreed upon, but they are not followed through. Oslo was never implemented in letter and spirit. Who will guarantee the implementation? Who will see it through? That is the main question.”

Hafeez said some Muslim countries might contribute to what had been called the stabilization force “but a ‘Board of Peace’ cannot be headed by US President Trump, who has no credibility whatsoever with the Palestinians, or by former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose role in the Iraq war raises serious questions.”

He also warned that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had already bent the so-called “Trump plan” to his will. “The Palestinians don’t call it the Trump plan — they call it the Netanyahu plan. It does not talk about any timeline for Israeli withdrawal, nor about a Palestinian state. It only calls it the ‘aspiration’ of the Palestinian people. Netanyahu is quite happy with that. He wants the Israelis held by Hamas back. But whether there will be permanent peace in Gaza remains vague because many of the key questions about the Palestinians’ future have been left vague.”

Ambassador Shahid M.G. Kiyani said the war had become “extremely unpopular, even within Israel.” He described an Israeli army frustrated with a campaign that “is counterproductive and achieving nothing,” and a population waiting only for Israeli prisoners to return.

He argued that Netanyahu’s political survival depends on keeping the war going. “His two coalition partners are hardliners who believe that killing every Palestinian in Gaza is the objective. At the same time, President Trump is looking towards the 10th of October when the Nobel Peace Prize will be announced; his eyes are on that. He has stopped small wars here and there, including the Pakistan-India conflict, so he is looking for this achievement.”

Yet Kiyani predicted a turning point. “My own opinion is that in the next 24 to 48 hours, the war in Gaza will stop. I hope I’m right, because whatever objectives the U.S. wanted — ending the war and pressuring Hamas — have been met, as Hamas has said that they accept what President Trump has asked and are willing not to fight anymore. The next 24 hours are very important.”

He also pointed to growing European pressure on Israel, particularly over weapons supplies. “Arab countries do not matter much for Israel; it is the support from the United States and Western countries that is crucial.”

Ambassador Sajjad Ashraf saw the plan as a calculated American move to strike when Hamas was weakest. “Trump’s plan comes as no surprise. The Americans waited to push till Hamas had little power left to resist the brutal Israeli assault,” he said. The attack on Doha, he added, had shaken Arab confidence in the U.S. security umbrella and forced some to act.

Ashraf warned, however, that “the implementation part is tricky” and said Palestinians had shown “tremendous strength in bearing it alone—the last two years of carnage.” He urged Arab and Islamic countries not to relax their pressure now. “They should not relent now and must maintain high pressure with concrete actions to achieve a two-state solution with international guarantees.”

Ambassador Sanaullah offered the most detailed critique of the plan’s mechanics. He called the American strategy “pragmatic,” noting that Washington had “played on the shoulders of Muslims” by bringing together eight prime ministers from the Islamic world to give the impression of ownership.

But he described the plan as riddled with unanswered questions. Sanaullah questioned whether Hamas fighters would surrender weapons, and if so, where they would go. “There will be problems. We don’t even know where the money will come from. It’s a matter of billions of dollars required for rehabilitation.”

He also expressed skepticism over who would run Gaza’s new administrative board. “They (Hamas) are willing to leave the administration, but they say this board should comprise only Palestinians. Most likely the board will have paid servants or agents from Israel or America,” he warned.

Sanaullah added that the two-state solution being floated looked more like a symbolic arrangement. “It will be a kind of dominion. It will not be completely sovereign.”

He also lamented what he called the weakness of Muslim solidarity and limited influence. “You are very weak. Your neighbors are not ready to support you,” he said.