Despite having received endorsements from Europe, Arab states and even many Palestinians, US President Donald Trump's 20-point plan to end the war in Gaza is flawed and leaves room for interpretation, experts have said.
The plan itself might be “comprehensive”, covering everything from hostage and prisoner releases to the entry of aid, and even addressing Palestinian statehood, but it lacks a road map for its implementation, said Palestinian analyst Fayed Abushammalah.
He compared the proposal to Oslo Accords, another highly anticipated peace plan that failed to yield fruit. “In Oslo, which is far better than Trump's current plan, we were promised a state within five years, meaning by 1999. Then Colin Powell promised it would be in place by 2005,” Mr Abushammalah told The National.
He highlighted the similarities between the conditions set by the Oslo Accords and Mr Trump's plan. Both proposals called for reform of the Palestinian Authority, emphasised the importance of elections and contained similar language about the rejection of terrorism, combating extremism and interfaith coexistence.
Renowned Palestinian historian Antoine Raffoul, a survivor of the Nakba of 1948, agreed. Speaking to The National, he pointed out that Mr Trump's plan contains provisions that contradict Palestinians' right to self-determination under international law.
“Perhaps the most outrageous nature of the 20-point plan is the fact that it retains Gaza as a strip surrounded, as before, by a Zionist military machine, which ensures that the Palestinians within the strip remain as prisoners inside 'the largest prison on earth',” Mr Raffoul said.
Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, one of Israel’s leading legal experts who represents hostage families in court, told The National that President Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan was a “wishful plan to end the war.”
“It is, on one hand, backed for the first time by Arab nations. It gives Israel an opportunity to end the war and complete the three goals: releasing the hostages, disarming Hamas and ensuring the Gaza Strip no longer serves as a threat to Israel,” she said.
“However," she continued, "there is only one obstacle, which is the Hamas response. Quite frankly, I don’t believe that Hamas will willingly disarm itself, leave Gaza, put down its weapons and release all the hostages. So it’s a good plan to have, but I don’t believe it’s practical.”
The plan comes at a time when Israel is under mounting pressure from the international community, including some of its most important allies, such as the US and its largest trading partner, the EU.
Countries such as France, Italy and Spain have even taken measures to partially or fully suspend weapons sales to Israel while it continues to bomb Gaza, killing and displacing thousands of civilians in a war that has continued for almost two years.
Former British prime minister Tony Blair, who has a questionable track record of peacekeeping in the Middle East, has been named as the effective overseer of Mr Trump's plan.
“Tony Blair's catastrophic decision to invade Iraq cost thousands upon thousands of lives,” MP and former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn wrote on social media. “He shouldn't be anywhere near the Middle East, let alone Gaza.”
The future of Palestine, he added, should be determined by the Palestinian people themselves.
Those behind the plan have made it not only imperfect, but weighted in favour of Israeli interests, said Palestinian analyst Sadeq Abu Ammar. He noted that while the proposal is clear when it comes to Israeli demands – such as the 72-hour deadline for the release of hostages by Hamas – it is intentionally vague when it comes to Palestinian demands, such the reconstruction of Gaza and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the enclave, for which no timeline is provided.
However, Mr Abu Ammar said, this vagueness could provide “flexibility to keep the door open for parties and states that are interested in participating”. He added that the involvement of Arab states in a “stabilisation force” could prompt Palestinians to remain in Gaza in the hope that their future would be relatively secure.
Threat of sabotage
Regardless of the scope of the plan, there remains a risk that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – who gave tacit support for it on Monday – will seek to derail it, former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas told The National.
“There are too many ambiguities here. As it stands, Netanyahu can’t accept it. He can’t accept the Palestinian Authority being part of future Gaza governance. He can’t accept a Palestinian state, even if it’s referred to as something in the future. He can’t accept Israeli withdrawal and redeployment,” Mr Pinkas said.
Hours after praising the plan during talks with Mr Trump at the White House, Mr Netanyahu publicly contradicted aspects of it. He said the Israeli army would maintain a presence in “most of” Gaza, and reaffirmed his opposition to Palestinian statehood.
Mr Pinkas suggested several ways in which Mr Netanyahu could interrupt the momentum of the peace plan. "[He could] waste time, demand changes and clarifications on ‘critical security issues’, escalate the operation in Gaza, turn Iran into a big issue in the next few weeks, thinking it will divert attention, and by the time that’s done in mid or late October, there’s no deal,” he said.
While Hamas leaders meet Qatari and Turkish officials in Doha to study the terms of the plan, which include its senior members' exile from Gaza, Israel's far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich is expected to discuss the proposal with members of his Religious Zionist Party.
Considering the plan's flaws – and doubts over whether it can even be implemented – Mr Raffoul cast doubt on whether people like the proposal’s authors have learned lessons from history.
– With additional reporting by Thomas Helm
