Trump’s Gaza peace plan: Flawed path sidelines Palestinian voices

By Shabana Ayaz

The Gaza Peace Plan 2025, unveiled by U.S. President Donald Trump with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as co-architect, is being promoted as a bold step to end the bloodshed in Gaza. At first glance, its promises of a ceasefire, humanitarian aid, and reconstruction appear to offer respite after two years of war that has claimed more than 66,000 lives.

Yet closer scrutiny reveals deep flaws that undermine its credibility and long-term viability. The plan sidelines Hamas, which won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and remains a central political force.

Experts argue that excluding an elected faction amounts to erasing genuine Palestinian representation. Instead, a technocratic committee backed by Washington and Blair is slated to run Gaza temporarily before transferring power to the Palestinian Authority. Analysts warn this framework risks creating an imposed “Gaza International Transitional Authority” rather than empowering Palestinians to govern themselves.

Key criticisms of the plan

• Hostage release without withdrawal guarantees: Viewed as a deceptive trade-off, demanding concessions without firm Israeli commitments.

• “Terror-free zones”: Critics say these repackage occupation by curbing Palestinian sovereignty.

• Safe passage and displacement risks: The clause could facilitate forced migration, threatening Palestinian demographic presence.

• Reconstruction under Israeli oversight: Aid delivery tied to Israeli approval undermines Palestinian autonomy.

• No clear path to statehood: Analysts call this “political suicide,” as the plan offers no roadmap to sovereignty.

Turkish journalists Turan Kislkaci and Serdar E caution that the plan is more deception than peace. Serdar draws chilling parallels to Bosnia’s Srebrenica massacre, where a “safe zone” ended in the slaughter of thousands. In his words:  “They told mujahideen to lay down arms for safety in Srebrenica, then massacred 25,000 Muslims. Now, Blair, who fueled Iraq’s bloodshed, is brought to govern Gaza. In 20 years, people may say, ‘We won’t forget Gaza.’”

Such warnings highlight fears that the plan echoes Bosnia’s failed peace model, where disarmament led to vulnerability and mass killings. By stripping Hamas of legitimacy without addressing occupation or settlement expansion, critics argue, the plan risks fueling radicalization. History suggests that suppressing one resistance group without resolving root causes only breeds new ones. As Kislakci notes: “Ignoring legitimate Palestinian voices ensures the cycle of resistance continues.”

Hamas has already said the plan in its current form serves Israeli and Western interests. Blair’s involvement, given his controversial role in the Iraq war, further erodes trust. Israeli amendments, critics argue, cement it as a colonial framework rather than a peace initiative.

The Gaza Peace Plan may provide short-term relief through a ceasefire and aid inflows. Yet without addressing central issues—occupation, self-determination, and Palestinian statehood—it risks becoming another chapter in historical betrayal. Whether Gaza finds freedom or remains trapped in what Serdar E calls a “net of peace” will depend not on foreign technocrats but on recognizing Palestinian rights and representation.

To avoid becoming yet another failed blueprint, the plan requires credible amendments that go beyond temporary ceasefires and externally imposed governance. Any lasting settlement must guarantee an immediate and verifiable Israeli withdrawal, ensure genuine Palestinian representation—including Hamas or an alternative leadership chosen through free elections—and establish a concrete timeline toward full Palestinian statehood.

Without these steps, the plan risks entrenching Gaza as a managed enclave rather than paving a path to freedom. Lasting peace can only emerge when Palestinian rights, sovereignty, and voices are placed at the center of the process—not on its margins.