Converting Trump's Gaza plan into peace requires an immediate end to the killing

Mourners attend the funeral of Palestinians killed in an Israeli strike on Saturday, October 4, after Donald Trump announced his peace plan. Reuters

When US President Donald Trump put forward his 20-point proposal to end the fighting between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, he might have been hoping for a simple “yes” or “no” from the warring parties. Instead, both gave similar responses: enthusiasm and praise, but underneath it a tone of “let’s see what the other side does first”.

Now, just before the two-year anniversary of Hamas’s attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, and after a series of ultimatums from Mr Trump, both sides have been coaxed into something of a deal. Hamas’s agreement on Friday to release all the Israeli hostages it holds even before any Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza was a very significant concession, capable of breaking the diplomatic stalemate that has allowed the conflict to continue for so long.

Still, any optimism must be tempered with plenty of caution. Over the past two years, the war has killed nearly 70,000 Palestinians, in addition to hundreds of Israelis. The numbers have climbed so high, in part, because in that time so many promising frameworks for peace deals have collapsed under the weight of political obstinacy and mistrust.

Hamas weapons and hostages main sticking points in Gaza peace talks

Read More

Those qualities remain. Israel’s far-right coalition remains a formidable obstacle to a two-state solution, which is where this path must lead. Mr Trump’s plan explicitly references Palestinian statehood, but Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, still refuses to acknowledge such an outcome. And while Hamas has reportedly accepted that it cannot have any meaningful role in Gaza’s future government, its official statements still leave room for ambiguity. It has not explicitly agreed to disarm, either – a key part of the Trump plan.

Many promising frameworks for peace deals have collapsed under the weight of political obstinacy

The two sides have begun meetings in Cairo to hash out more details. “All eyes are on Gaza,” said Anwar Gargash, diplomatic adviser to President Sheikh Mohamed, on Sunday. He was speaking not only for the UAE, which has invested considerable effort in realising a peace deal, but for the whole world.

But even if there is momentum towards peace in the negotiation rooms, it is far from apparent on the ground in Gaza. The enclave is now largely rubble, its hospitals barely functioning and its resident families displaced many times over. The physical destruction is a surface layer; the trauma runs much deeper. Bombs are still falling from the sky, soldiers are still shooting, most aid is still blocked from entering and people are still starving. Rebuilding amid such a state of affairs will require more than money and materials. It requires genuine good faith and commitment to progress. Any agreement that emerges from the Cairo talks, therefore, will be a starting point for a long, important process that must prioritise the welfare of Palestinians.

Israel’s conduct in the intervening time matters. If Mr Netanyahu truly believes that a deal is within reach, he must demonstrate good faith immediately. He has not done that yet; just hours after Mr Trump told Israel to halt its bombing campaigns, Israeli strikes killed 70 Palestinians, including two children.

Continuing air strikes and keeping the doors to humanitarian aid shut does not create any new leverage in negotiations. It only signals that Israel wants to cause as much damage as possible before it is forced to stop. This ought to be unacceptable to everyone. The people of Gaza, as Mr Trump’s plan states in no uncertain terms, “have suffered more than enough”.