Peace on Paper, War on the Ground in Gaza
Ishtiaq Ahmed
Bradford: Fighting in Gaza persists, even as global attention shifts to Hamas and its potential response to the peace plan proposed by the US President Donald Trump’ and agreed by the Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The peace plan comes along with a warning from President Trump that if Hamas rejects the deal, Israel will have his “full backing” to eliminate the group. It’s already known that Trump has already committed billions in military aid to Israel.
Netanyahu also issued a hollow apology to Qatar for the killing of one of its citizens during an Israeli strike on Doha earlier this month while the Israeli military continues to bombard key infrastructure sites in Gaza.
Since dawn, at least 33 Palestinians have been killed and many more injured in Israeli strikes. Earlier today, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the launch of a “powerful operation” in Gaza.
According to recent estimates, the conflict has resulted in at least 66,055 Palestinian deaths and over 168,346 wounded since October 2023. Thousands more are believed to be buried beneath rubble.
The details of the Trump-backed peace plan continue to emerge. However, there is growing concern about Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair leading the peace initiative: Trump is erratic and unpredictable; Netanyahu faces accusations of genocide in Gaza; Blair stands accused of the destruction of Iraq and misleading the British Parliament on the illegal attack on Iraq.
Given this track record, many question whether this trio can be trusted to deliver a just and balanced peace plan for Palestinians.
The plan proposes an immediate cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas, who have been engaged in conflict for nearly two years. However, Hamas would be excluded from any future governance of Gaza. Some key aspects of the peace plan:
All Israeli hostages, dead or alive, are to be released within 72 hours of Israel accepting the deal.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/genocide-in-gaza-confirmed-by-the-un-commission/
In return, Israel would release 250 Palestinians serving life sentences and 1,700 others detained since October 7, 2023.
For each deceased Israeli hostage, Israel would release the remains of 15 deceased Palestinians.
Israeli forces would not fully withdraw immediately but would pull back to a designated line within Gaza to facilitate the hostage release. All military operations, including air and artillery strikes, would be suspended during this period.
Battle lines would remain frozen until conditions are met for a staged withdrawal
Once the hostages are released:
Amnesty would be granted to Hamas fighters.
Those wishing to leave Gaza would be allowed safe passage to countries willing to receive them.
Gaza would be transformed into a “de-radicalized, terror-free zone”, with redevelopment focused on improving the lives of its people. The plan specifically states that:
Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza.
No one will be forced to leave the territory.
Those who choose to leave may freely return.
Full humanitarian aid will resume, coordinated by the UN, the Red Crescent, and other neutral agencies.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/saudi-accord-whats-in-it-for-pakistan/
The Rafah border crossing in southern Gaza, heavily damaged by Israeli attacks, will be reopened.
Gaza’s administration would be handed over to a temporary technocratic and apolitical Palestinian committee, monitored by an international “Board of Peace”, which includes global leaders and officials such as Tony Blair.
This board would oversee Gaza’s redevelopment and aid allocation, while the Palestinian Authority (PA) undergoes internal reform.
A panel of experts would also craft what’s referred to as a “Trump Economic Development Plan”, an ambitious blueprint to rebuild Gaza with advanced infrastructure and economic hubs, akin to a high-tech “Riviera.”
The plan postpones addressing the creation of a Palestinian state, a contentious issue Netanyahu firmly opposes. Instead, it calls for an “interfaith dialogue process” aimed at promoting tolerance and reshaping Israeli and Palestinian narratives.
Only after the successful redevelopment of Gaza and the reform of the PA does the plan suggest that there may be conditions for a “credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood,” acknowledging this as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.
The author is a British citizen of Pakistani origin with a keen interest in Pakistani and international affairs.
The article is the writer’s opinion, it may or may not adhere to the organization’s editorial policy.
1. On the credibility of the “peace trio”
The involvement of Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Tony Blair in this plan raises serious doubts. Each of them has a history that undermines their credibility as neutral peacemakers: Trump’s unpredictability, Netanyahu’s alleged war crimes in Gaza, and Blair’s record in Iraq all cast shadows over the process. Palestinians are unlikely to see them as genuine brokers of peace.
—
2. On the humanitarian cost
The reported figure of over 66,000 Palestinian deaths since October 2023 is staggering. Any discussion of peace must begin with accountability for these losses, not just temporary ceasefires or economic development plans. Without justice and recognition of Palestinian suffering, no agreement will hold legitimacy.
—
3. On the structure of the plan
While the immediate cessation of hostilities and prisoner exchanges are positive steps, the exclusion of Hamas from future governance and the imposition of an international “Board of Peace” led by foreign powers risks looking like external control rather than genuine self-determination. It could be viewed as a new form of occupation by proxy.
—
4. On Gaza’s future
The vision of transforming Gaza into a “high-tech Riviera” sounds attractive on paper, but it feels detached from the ground realities of devastation, displacement, and trauma. Rebuilding Gaza must prioritize housing, health, dignity, and sovereignty—not only economic models designed by outsiders.
—
5. On Palestinian statehood
The postponement of a Palestinian state is perhaps the most glaring weakness of the plan. Deferring this core issue risks freezing the conflict rather than resolving it. Without a clear, binding path to statehood, the plan may become yet another cycle of promises without delivery.
—
* In summary, while Ishtiaq Bhai highlights some hopeful elements (hostage release, humanitarian aid, ceasefire), the plan seems tilted towards Israeli and Western interests, with Palestinians again asked to sacrifice their sovereignty in exchange for temporary relief.
A troubling aspect of the peace plan proposal by president Donald Trump and agreed by Netanyahu which subjugate ‘s the future of Palestine to the whims of unpredictable and unprincipled Donald Trump and USA, is naively endorsed by the Muslim nation’s including Pakistan. I hear murmurs on social media that Pakistan is distancing itself from the agreement by saying it was not the agreement that Trump shared with them. If this is true then the Pakistani political leadership is more dumber than we think .
Salim Raza’s exposition of inherent weaknesses in the peace plan are right on the mark. If Hamas is deemed terrorist and excluded, Netanyahu his Zionist affiliates should also be excluded for deemed genocide.
It makes no sense to trust the future of Palestine in the hands of an arbitrary Board of international powers headed by Trump the principal supporter and backer of Neytanhue. This is almost like handing the control of Palestine to Israel by proxy. It also concedes to the Trump’s aspirations of developing Palestine as his private resort . The entire peace plan is designed to annex the rights of Palestine as an independent state to a private limited company. Therefore, it is bizarre that Muslim leadership have agreed to this.
“Absolutely agreed, Bhai. Any genuine peace plan must hold all sides accountable, not selectively brand one as terrorist while excusing another’s war crimes. Putting Palestine’s future under Trump’s patronage is nothing less than surrendering its independence to vested interests. True peace can only come when Palestinians themselves have sovereignty over their destiny.”
The so called peace plan is vague , ambivalent and lopsided and hence unworkable. It is controlled by sympathisers and supporters of Zionist Israel with a track record of committing genocide and war crimes. Netanyahu has already rejeced the notion of two state solution. Hence , Hamas may not accept it .
The Arab rulers are slaves of America and like America and Israel they want also to see the eradication of Hamas.
Therefore, the situation, instead of getting better, may get much worse , which will be advantageous for megalomaniac Trump to build his tower and pluder the resources of Gaza in collusion with Netanyahu.
Through the smokescreen!
The so called Trump/ Netanyahu “ 20 –point peace plan is best understood as part of a much longer trajectory: a sequence of diplomatic moves designed to normalise and legalise the Israeli occupation of the Palestine. Changing the label attached to a proposal does not alter its underlying purpose. Time and again, policies presented as pragmatic peace initiatives have in practice sought to secure Israel’s strategic and territorial gains, and to consolidate control over Palestinian land and, crucially, over sites of profound religious and cultural significance.
A critical problem with the current plan is its intrinsic biase. Its provisions are tilted so significantly towards Israel that they preclude meaningful Palestinian consent. Consent obtained under such conditions would be hollow; genuine self‑determination requires terms that respect rights and parity, not terms that effectively formalise dispossession. The diplomatic architecture surrounding the plan appears to be deliberately constructed to produce a political outcome: should Palestinians reject it as any credible leadership committed to their rights would likely do , those leaders can then be portrayed as obstructive or unreasonable. This mechanism of shifting blame away from structural injustice and towards the victims has long been a recurring feature of the international response to the conflicts in Kashmir, Palestine and other parts of the Muslim world.
Equally concerning is the behaviour of several states in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Rather than acting as independent interlocutors seeking a just solution, governments in the region increasingly appear to be subsuming their policies to broader geopolitical alignments, particularly to the US agenda. The ostensible mediators, states like Egypt, Turkey, Qatar and Pakistan , are accused here of prioritising Israel’s security and regional stability in ways that pressure Palestinian resistance movements, instead of advocating for Palestinian rights. This role erosion undermines the credibility of regional diplomacy and weakens the prospects for a solution perceived as fair by Palestinians.
The internal contradictions of the strategy are stark. Israel’s own leadership has publicly rejected essential features of the plan, for instance, any meaningful withdrawal from Gaza or recognition of Palestinian statehood, yet there is no corresponding public challenge from the regional actors who are being asked to endorse or implement the proposal. Washington’s silence, meanwhile, functions as a diplomatic green light; by not pushing back on Israel’s obstruction, Washington seems to be pushing for a status quo that erodes Palestinian agency.
From the perspective of those defending Palestinian rights, hesitation or outright rejection of the proposal is not mere intransigence but a rational response to a process that offers no enforceable safeguards. Temporary arrangements, hostage exchanges, and limited ceasefires, do not amount to guarantees that the overarching campaign of military pressure and territorial consolidation will cease. The purpose of the new package seems to be to grind down Palestinian governance and capacity for self‑rule before Israel assumes full control.
Looking ahead, the likely political outcome is sadly predictable. International discourse tends to recycle a familiar script: the rhetoric of pragmatism and compromise is deployed to sell an unequal bargain, and when the balance of power produces rejection, the blame lands on those resisting. If regional leaders continue to align publicly with that script, whether out of geopolitical calculation or coercion, the Palestinian cause becomes more isolated, and the cycle of violence and destruction risks becoming further entrenched.
A different approach is possible but would require meaningful shifts. First, any credible plan must be built on parity and enforceable guarantees: withdrawal of occupying forces, protection of holy sites, recognition of Palestinian political rights, and mechanisms to ensure compliance. Second, regional actors must reclaim independent diplomatic roles that genuinely prioritise justice and human rights over short‑term strategic alignments. Third, international guarantees, not merely statements of intent, would be necessary to hold parties to account and to protect civilians. Without these changes, proposals risk becoming instruments of consolidation for Israel rather than pathways to a just and sustainable peace.