As the Israel-Hamas conflict enters its third year, President Donald Trump’s newly unveiled 20-point Gaza peace plan has sparked global debate. Announced on September 29, 2025, the strategy aims to end the war through immediate ceasefires, hostage releases, and long-term deradicalization efforts. With over 66,000 Palestinian deaths reported and ongoing Israeli operations in Gaza City, the question looms large: Will this bold initiative bring lasting peace, or will it deepen divisions?
A Path to Peace or a Tightrope?
Trump’s comprehensive proposal outlines a roadmap for de-escalation and reconstruction, emphasizing security guarantees and economic revival. Key elements include:
- Immediate Ceasefire and Hostage Exchange: All Israeli hostages—alive or deceased—must be released within 72 hours, in exchange for Israel freeing 250 Palestinian prisoners with life sentences and 1,700 others detained since October 2023.
- Demilitarization of Gaza: Hamas’s military wing would be dismantled under independent international monitoring, with weapons factories and tunnels destroyed. Gaza becomes a “terror-free zone” posing no threat to neighbors.
- Governance Overhaul: A technocratic Palestinian administration, excluding Hamas, would temporarily govern Gaza. No Israeli annexation is permitted, and redevelopment focuses on benefiting Palestinians through international funding.
- Security and Reconstruction: An international force, primarily from Arab and Muslim countries, would secure Gaza, enabling Israel’s gradual withdrawal. Billions in aid would rebuild infrastructure, with commitments from Gulf states for economic projects.
The plan has garnered endorsements from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and leaders across the Middle East, positioning it as a potential game-changer. However, Hamas has only 3-4 days to respond, or face severe consequences, as Trump warned on September 30, 2025. Early signs suggest cautious optimism, but success hinges on buy-in from all sides.
Under Trump’s Policy?
Under Trump’s strategy, Muslim-majority nations are positioned as pivotal enforcers, tasked with demilitarizing Gaza and sidelining militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Recent pledges indicate a shift: Eight countries, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, Indonesia, and Pakistan, have publicly welcomed the plan and committed to its implementation.
This alignment stems from pragmatic concerns. Leaders in these nations view Hamas’s governance as a barrier to regional stability and economic ties with Israel, especially post-Abraham Accords expansions. For instance, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have conditioned normalization with Israel on Palestinian progress, but Trump’s assurances against West Bank annexation have eased tensions. Turkey, despite its vocal criticism of Israel, has signaled support, prioritizing refugee flows and trade routes.
Hezbollah, backed by Iran, faces indirect pressure. While not directly addressed in the plan, Trump’s policy implicitly isolates Iran-aligned groups by empowering Sunni-led states to oversee Gaza’s security. As of October 1, 2025, these countries have agreed in writing to deploy forces for post-ceasefire monitoring, signaling a collective preference for stability over ideological solidarity with militants. This could marginalize Hamas and Hezbollah, but risks backlash from hardliners within these nations’ publics.
Can Muslim Countries Easily Curb Hamas?
Pressuring Hamas to disarm and exit politics is a cornerstone of Trump’s vision, but executing it through Muslim nations is fraught with hurdles. In July 2025, the Arab League issued its first unanimous call for Hamas to relinquish power, backed by 17 countries including Egypt, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. This momentum has intensified with Trump’s deadline, as weakened Hamas leaders—following Israeli strikes in Qatar—face isolation.
Yet, ease of implementation varies. Egypt and Jordan, bordering Gaza, hold leverage through border controls and aid flows, potentially choking Hamas’s supply lines. Gulf states like the UAE offer financial incentives for compliance, tying reconstruction funds to disarmament. Public sentiment in Gaza also aids: Recent surveys show widespread anti-Hamas fatigue, with locals demanding an end to the war.
Challenges persist. Hamas retains grassroots support among Palestinians viewing it as a resistance symbol, and enforcement could spark internal Palestinian fractures. Indonesia and Pakistan, with large Muslim populations, lack direct influence but amplify diplomatic pressure via the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Overall, while not “easy,” coordinated economic and security measures could sideline Hamas within 6-12 months if the ceasefire holds.
Can International Peace Missions Halt Israeli Attacks
Trump’s plan integrates international oversight to prevent renewed violence, but its effectiveness in curbing Israeli operations remains untested. The proposal deploys monitors from the UN, EU, and Arab states to verify demilitarization, with troops from Muslim countries securing Gaza post-withdrawal. European leaders from France, the UK, Italy, and Germany have endorsed this framework, citing a $53 billion reconstruction pledge as a “realistic” deterrent.
Halting attacks: Missions could succeed by embedding observers in real-time, similar to past UNIFIL roles in Lebanon, enforcing no-fly zones over Gaza and rapid-response teams. As of September 30, 2025, Netanyahu has agreed to phased IDF pullouts, contingent on verified hostage returns. However, ongoing strikes—killing 59 in Gaza on September 30—highlight risks of non-compliance.
Retaliation potential: The plan bars it explicitly, but ambiguities allow Israel to respond to “imminent threats.” Flotilla incidents, like the intercepted Gaza Sumud mission, underscore enforcement gaps, with activists facing detention under international maritime law violations. Success depends on robust mandates; without them, missions risk becoming symbolic.
A Detailed Breakdown
While promising swift resolution, Trump’s blueprint carries risks of entanglement. Here’s a step-by-step analysis:
- Hostage and Prisoner Dynamics: The 72-hour release timeline is ambitious but logistically complex, requiring Hamas coordination amid internal divisions. Delays could reignite Israeli incursions, as seen in February 2025’s failed exchange.
- Demilitarization Enforcement: Independent monitors sound ideal, but lacking a firm Israeli halt date invites prolonged presence, eroding trust. Critics note it permits “permanent military oversight,” potentially mirroring West Bank checkpoints.
- Governance Vacuum: Excluding Hamas without Palestinian input risks power struggles. Gazans, absent from drafting, fear elite-driven decisions, complicating buy-in.
- Funding and Reconstruction: Pledges from Muslim states total billions, but tied to compliance, they could incentivize peace—or breed resentment if unevenly distributed.
- Broader Regional Fallout: Isolating Iran might provoke proxy escalations via Hezbollah, while settlement expansions in the West Bank undermine two-state viability.
Net effect: The plan could simplify by unifying stakeholders but complicate if Netanyahu exploits loopholes, as recent reports suggest. A February 2025 ceasefire precedent shows partial successes, but full implementation demands ironclad timelines.
Direct military involvement remains minimal; most Muslim nations act as diplomatic brokers rather than combatants. As of October 1, 2025, no country has deployed troops against Israel, focusing instead on Trump’s post-war security roles. Egypt mediates ceasefires via Rafah crossings, while Qatar hosts Hamas talks.
Indirect participation includes humanitarian aid: Saudi Arabia and the UAE have funneled over $2 billion since 2023, alongside OIC condemnations of October 7, 2023, attacks. Turkey and Indonesia rally public support but avoid escalation. Trump’s meetings with leaders from these nations on September 23, 2025, shifted focus to reconstruction forces, not frontline fighting.
In summary, participation is supportive, not belligerent—prioritizing de-escalation to avert wider conflict. Trump’s Gaza strategy holds promise through Muslim alliances and international backing, potentially succeeding if Hamas capitulates by October 4, 2025. Yet, without addressing Palestinian agency and Israeli commitments, it risks perpetuating cycles of violence. As global eyes watch, the plan’s true test lies in turning pledges into action, offering a narrow window for the peace Palestinians and Israelis desperately need.
