Details and timelines remain vague in the 20-point plan, unveiled in the White House on Monday.
The United States president’s 20-point ceasefire proposal in Gaza includes many ambiguous provisions that could be decisive for the future of Palestine and the region.
When presenting it in the White House on Monday, alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Donald Trump hailed the plan as historic. But figuring out the details for some of its elements will likely be a major challenge to its implementation.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 items
- list 1 of 3Trump outlines plan to end Israel’s war on Gaza
- list 2 of 3Israel carries out drone strike in southern Lebanon, killing one person
- list 3 of 3Netanyahu says he supports Trump’s plan to end war on Gaza
end of list
Here are five unresolved issues with the proposal:
How will Gaza be governed?
The proposal envisions a “temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee” that would oversee the territory’s affairs. But it does not detail how the panel will be formed or who will select its members.
Moreover, the plan says that Trump and Toni Blair, the United Kingdom’s former prime minister, would lead a “board of peace” that would supervise the governing committee. But the roadmap does not explain the nature of the relationship between this board and the Palestinian committee, or at what level the day-to-day decisions would be made.
Will the Palestinian Authority be involved?
Trump’s plan says that the transitional authorities would take control of Gaza until “such time as the Palestinian Authority (PA) has completed its reform” programme and “can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza”. Yet, it remains unclear who would certify that the PA is ready to take over Gaza or what benchmarks must be met for the PA to handle the governance of the territory.
There are no timetables, just a vague pronouncement.
The proposal’s language additionally treats Gaza as an independent entity, not one that is part of Palestine, that must be unified with the rest of occupied Palestinian territory.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, who said he agreed to the proposal, has all but ruled out a return of the PA to Gaza.
“Gaza will be administered neither by Hamas, nor by the Palestinian Authority,” the Israeli prime minister said, standing alongside Trump.
How will the international force be formed?
The plan says that Gaza would be secured by “a temporary International Stabilisation Force”, but where would it come from, and what would its mandate be?
It is not clear what countries are willing to send troops to Gaza, or which ones would be acceptable under the plan.
The proposal also does not spell out the responsibilities and rules of engagement of the would-be peacekeepers.
Would they act as an army, police force, or observer force? Would they be tasked with taking on Hamas? Would they be able to fight Israeli troops to protect Palestinians?
When will Israel withdraw?
The proposal says that Israel would withdraw from Gaza “based on standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarisation”.
Again, the provision does not set a schedule for the Israeli withdrawal or clear standards for how and when it would happen.
Moreover, it says that Israel would hold onto a “security perimeter” in Gaza until the territory “is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat”.
But there is no word on who would ultimately decide when these conditions are met.
Is Palestinian statehood on the cards?
During his news conference on Monday, Trump said that several allies had “foolishly recognised the Palestinian state… but they’re really, I think, doing that because they’re very tired of what’s going on”.
The proposal makes a reference to the prospect of Palestinian statehood behind a thick wall of cloudiness, conditions and qualifiers.
“While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform programme is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognise as the aspiration of the Palestinian people,” it says.
So, Gaza development and PA “reforms” are set as conditions. And even then, discussions for a Palestinian state “may” be in place. It is not guaranteed.
Moreover, the proposal does not recognise the right to Palestinian statehood. Rather, it acknowledges statehood as something that Palestinians are seeking.
Like the other provisions, this one is also shrouded in vagueness and ambiguity.
