The peace framework unveiled by Donald Trump and endorsed by Israel, along with conditional support from several Arab and Muslim majority states, is ambitious in rhetoric but deeply problematic in its structure. While many see it as a chance to end the devastation in Gaza, closer examination suggests that it privileges Israeli strategic and political demands far more than it addresses core Palestinian rights. Several features of the proposal need critical scrutiny.
Among its most striking stipulations are demands that Hamas disarm, surrender its governance role, release all hostages (including remains) within 72 hours, and yield control over Gaza’s future political direction to an international transitional body. In return, Israel would pull back its forces, allow humanitarian aid, and enable reconstruction under strict oversight. The plan also promises no annexation of Gaza but puts in place long-term international or multilateral supervision through an “International Stabilization Force,” and reserves for Israel a continuing security role until “threats” are judged mitigated.
Support from regional mediators has come with caveats. Arab states, including Egypt, Qatar, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, have reportedly asked for modifications, a full Israeli withdrawal, ensuring weapons of interest are stored rather than transferred, and more clarity on how hostages and remains can be recovered. The criticism within Gaza and from Palestinians generally is that the plan doesn’t originate from them. Hamas has publicly stated it has not even formally received the proposal in full and has raised concerns about being excluded from meaningful negotiation.
What makes the proposal especially contentious is its asymmetry. It offers Palestinians conditional benefits (aid, reconstruction, and potential political recognition) tied to accepting a large surrender of power, including security, governance, and military capacities. Meanwhile, Israel is asked for far less in terms of accountability beyond not annexing Gaza and some “withdrawals” which may be phased or partial. Without balanced obligations, justice, reparations, recognition of rights such as self-determination, territory, and return of refugees, the framework risks perpetuating injustice under the guise of peace. International legal norms are also at play. Multiple reports have raised concerns that forced disarmament or compelled relinquishing of governance without the consent of the governed undermines rights under international law, particularly in contexts of occupation and self-determination. Excluding Hamas will have a negative impact, as participation in decisions over Gaza’s future also runs counter to the principles of inclusion needed for a durable agreement.
There is a further danger in timing. Amid the immense humanitarian crisis, tens of thousands killed, massive displacement, and infrastructure destroyed, a rapid peace agreement imposed with these terms may leave the feeling of betrayal and coercion rather than being heard. Skepticism is high among Gazans and among Palestinians broadly; many see this not as a genuine pathway to dignity but as a political instrument that expects their suffering to be exchanged for someone else’s vision of order. Still, the endorsement by several states suggests geopolitical pressure is building. Regional leaders face urgent internal and external imperatives preventing further deaths, avoiding spillover into neighboring states, preserving their own legitimacy, and managing international expectations. These pressures may push them to accept a deeply imperfect plan.
If the framework is to have any chance of being more than a ceasefire interlude. It must be amended in ways that restore balance. The right of Palestinians to self-determination must be central; any transitional governance must include local representation and real political power. Israel must accept legal responsibilities around war crimes, displacement, and the conditions imposed on Gaza; and guarantees must be more than promises, they must be enforceable under international law with oversight by credible institutions, not merely by political appointees. Without these adjustments, the present proposal risks becoming another chapter in a cycle: hopeful declarations, temporary reductions in violence, followed by renewed grievance, violence, and despair. For many Palestinians, peace that demands surrender is indistinguishable from continued subjugation. If peace is to mean something enduring, it must be built on justice as well as cessation of hostilities, not just on what the strong are willing to offer.