Trump's Gaza peace plan is just a start – now the hard work begins

The reasons behind a wide range of interpretations about the Gaza peace plan’s intentions include the Arabs’ lack of trust in Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump. EPA

If US President Donald Trump really wants to earn a Nobel Peace Prize, he’s going to need to do better than his 20-point Comprehensive Plan to End Gaza’s Conflict.

With his characteristic exaggeration, Mr Trump called the release of his plan “one of the greatest days in human history”, but poring over Arab, Israeli and US press reveals that most analysts are not inclined to see it that way.

After reading commentaries by writers across the board, it is most striking how widely divergent towards Mr Trump’s effort their views are. While a few in all three regions express hope that the plan represents a pathway to peace, there’s a significant group of Israelis, Arabs and Americans who see it as flawed, albeit for different reasons.

Israeli hardliners, for example, suggest that if Mr Trump’s 20-point plan were implemented, it will inevitably lead to the creation of a Palestinian state that will pose a mortal threat to Israel’s security. Meanwhile, a sizeable number of Arabs express the concern that, if followed, Mr Trump’s plan will make Israel’s occupation permanent, resulting in the dissolution of the Palestinian cause. In fact, the only issues on which there is agreement are that the plan would stop the further devastation in Gaza and allow for the return of Israeli hostages and some Palestinian prisoners.

The reasons behind this wide range of interpretations about the plan’s intentions are many: the Arabs’ lack of trust in both Mr Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; the belief of hardline ideological Israelis that Mr Netanyahu will do whatever it takes to remain Prime Minister; the deliberate vagueness of most of the plan’s key points; and, especially galling for Palestinians, the fact that they were handed the plan as a fait accompli without having been asked to provide input and told to accept it or, as Mr Trump put it, “all HELL, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas”.

At least 70 Gazans killed in Israeli air strikes despite Trump’s call for ceasefire

01:22

Of all of these factors, it’s the vagueness that is problematic for all sides. Israeli hardliners, for example, fret over the mention of an Israeli withdrawal, the presence of Arab peacekeepers, Palestinian police and the possible return of the Palestinian Authority (which, in their minds, means a link between the West Bank and Gaza leading to a Palestinian state).

Palestinians, on the other hand, reading the document closely, see that none of these provisions are guaranteed. And while there is mention of a phased Israeli withdrawal, the plan provides for Israeli forces to remain in a security perimeter inside Gaza. For Palestinians, this means a continuation of the two-decades-long stranglehold Israel has had over all access into and egress from Gaza. They see this plan as too focused on Israeli security, with little regard for justice and Palestinian security.

Another glaring problem is the lack of definition of terms and an enforcement mechanism that will ensure that the terms of the plan are implemented.

What, for example, is the definition of the “technocratic apolitical Palestinian committee” that is to be created to run day-to-day operations in Gaza? Will its members be vetted by the Trump-led board? Will the Israelis be able to veto members? Without any clarity on these points, will this committee be viewed as having legitimacy by Palestinians?

And finally, without a defined neutral mechanism for enforcement, will the US allow Israel to act in Gaza as they have with regard to the ceasefires in Lebanon and Syria – where they act as the sole arbiter and enforcer of the agreements? (Their interpretation of ceasefire appears to be “you cease, while we continue to fire”.)

The plan mentions an economic development plan to attract foreign investment that is to be designed by experts who have helped “birth some of the thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East” and a special economic zone with preferred tariffs. But one is hard-pressed to understand the relevance of all of this to the plight and immediate needs of Palestinians, which must take precedence over fantasy cities of the future.

One glaring problem is the lack of definition of terms and an enforcement mechanism

There is some detail provided with regard to Hamas members’ decommissioning their weapons, pledging to commit to peaceful coexistence and the formation of an International Stabilisation Force in Gaza. But it’s not clear how this will be administered. And while our polls make clear that Palestinians in Gaza have had enough of this war and Hamas, they also express the desire to be governed by a national unity coalition of Palestinians, and they want accountability for the crimes committed by the Israeli forces.

The bottom line is that far from being “one of the great days in human history”, the Trump plan is just a start. It may eventually end the bombing and return those held captive, but in order to lead to peace, there must be a great deal more discussion that adds flesh to the bones of the plan. That will require openness and trust on all sides. That said, the following are essential.

First, Hamas should not be the arbiter of the Palestinian future. Too many lives have been lost and many more shattered. The fighting must end. Second, Arab and other nations must insist that Israelis be held accountable for the crimes they have committed. They can’t be brushed aside. Third, with a ceasefire agreed to by all sides, the huge influx of aid and support that Palestinians will require should commence.

Fourth, working from the outline provided by the Trump plan, negotiations should begin, with serious Palestinian input at all levels to flesh out the details that can resolve unanswered questions. Fifth, if the US President wants to earn his place in history, he must be willing to crack the whip requiring Israel to adhere to whatever terms are established.

And finally, for this to be prize-worthy, the whip-cracking must also be applied to the West Bank and East Jerusalem – and not only with regard to annexation. If peace is to be achieved, settlement expansion, land confiscation, home demolitions, raids and rampages by settlers must end. This behaviour has weakened the credibility of the PA, won greater support for Hamas and prepared the ground for even greater conflict.

The Trump plan, with its focus on Israel’s security and vague assurances to Palestinians, succeeded in getting Mr Netanyahu and Hamas on board, each side with their own reservations. If it is to lead to peace, there is hard work ahead.