🔗 Share this article

Two years after the militant group atrocities of October 7th, 2023, where some 1,200 Israeli citizens were killed, and during a genocide in Gaza where over more than sixty-seven thousand Palestinian casualties, the urgency for peace has never been more critical. Palestinians are in dire need for an cessation to hunger and airstrikes. Israelis want the war to conclude for the sake of remaining hostages and military personnel. Violence has spread across the Middle East. Momentum has been growing around the former US president's proposal, with both Israel's prime minister and Hamas showing reluctant approval under US threat.

Frail Hopes and Significant Opposition

With indirect talks between the two warring parties starting in Egypt on Monday afternoon, there are frail hopes of progress at last. However, both parties have made it clear that they oppose key elements of the 20-point US plan, which begins with an halt to fighting, the return of all captives – followed by the freeing of Palestinian prisoners – and the resumption of humanitarian assistance.

For the Israeli leader, ongoing conflict in the region extends his time in power. His allies in government want to expel the Palestinian population and settle Gaza. The militant organization has no desire to sign itself out of existence, and handing back the last hostages would eliminate any bargaining power it retains. It has seen a large part of its command structure eliminated, as well as life in Gaza – but has also observed international public opinion shift unprecedentedly towards support for Palestinians, dragging governments in its wake. It can enlist from a huge pool of angry and traumatised young men.

Comprehensive Proposal and Its Contentious Elements

The full peace plan is even more controversial. Pledges of broad support from nations in the region and in the European continent do not mean that they believe it is workable – and certainly not that they want to commit troops to an “international stabilisation force”. But a number believe that a more plausible and just way forward might somehow emerge from all this.

Indeed, this proposal is more moderate than the initial Trumpian vision of a “resort” built on the forced displacement of the Palestinian people. Palestinians would remain, but would be sidelined, as they were in formulating the proposal. The “board of peace” managing Gaza appears to be a colonial administration led by Mr Trump personally and, alarmingly given his history in the area, Tony Blair.

The plan pays lip service to future autonomy and statehood as a mere “goal” – not an entitlement – of the Palestinian people, via a path that could not be more vague, conditional or tentative. It declares that the Israeli government will not occupy or annex Gaza. The Israeli prime minister has previously stated that the army would stay in most of it and would “forcibly resist” a Palestinian state.

Pressure and Prospects

Mr Trump has strong-armed the Israel's leader finally, but lethal attacks continue and he, like Joe Biden previously, might have stopped the slaughter long ago. Telling the both sides to “move fast” now demonstrates his short attention span as much as the pressing need for a truce. He will certainly accept anything allows him to claim credit. If the Israeli military ceases operations, it could resume the assault at any time – exactly like it violated the truce earlier in the year.

Every chance to stop this destructive conflict must be taken. Something better may emerge from this process, if – a major condition – Mr Trump and other leaders apply heavy, sustained pressure to Mr Netanyahu and forge a agreement that Middle Eastern countries can wholeheartedly back, guaranteeing pressure on Hamas. But lasting peace should not and cannot be built upon an neglect of basic Palestinian rights.