Afrasianet - Dr. Hisham Okal - I attended the press conference between Trump and Netanyahu, or rather, I watched a poorly staged performance titled: "The Peace Plan."

Trump spoke about Gaza as if it were a plot of land at a public auction, and Netanyahu smiled with the smile of someone who knew that the American guest was offering him on a silver platter what previous Israeli governments had failed to secure.

The plan, formulated by President Trump and presented as a "comprehensive solution" to the Gaza conflict, appears, at first glance, coherent in terms of its sequence and mechanisms: a ceasefire, a hostage and prisoner exchange, reconstruction, an international stabilization force, disarmament, and then a new economic horizon.

However, upon closer examination, it appears to be closer to a security crisis management document than a political settlement project. First: Strengths Clearly procedural nature:

The plan is detailed and sets timetables (72 hours for the release of hostages, stages of Israeli military withdrawal, and a mechanism for the entry of aid). This gives it a practical character.

It can be implemented on the ground.

Including humanitarian elements: providing immediate aid, rebuilding infrastructure, supporting hospitals and bakeries, and releasing Palestinian prisoners—all steps that convey a sense of seriousness regarding the suffering of civilians. Opening up to an international umbrella:

Talk of a "Peace Council" led by Trump, with international figures (Tony Blair) and an international stabilization force, gives the plan a sense of multilateralism, even if the actual leadership remains American.

The economic proposal: The idea of a special economic zone and a development plan reflects Trump's approach to presenting "peace through prosperity," a rhetoric that appeals to some international groups.

Second: Fundamental weaknesses and gaps The glaring absence of the Palestinian side:

The Palestinians were not consulted as a primary party, neither Hamas, the PA, nor the factions.

The plan treats Gaza as an administrative arena to be reshaped from the outside, not as part of a Palestinian national project.

Ignoring the Palestinian Statehood Plan:

There is no clear mention of a Palestinian state or the right to self-determination except in Article 19, and in a conditional and vague manner (“conditions may arise…”).

This means that the national issue is reduced to improving services and security without a real political horizon.

Marginalizing the Palestinian National Authority: No mention of any role for the Authority in governing Gaza during the interim period is made; instead, there is talk of a “technocratic committee under international supervision.”

This weakens the legitimacy of any subsequent process and deepens the Palestinian division between Gaza and the West Bank.

Separating the West Bank from Gaza:

The plan never addressed the geographic and political reconnection between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

It appears as if Gaza is being governed as an independent entity, serving the Israeli vision of separating the two tracks and obstructing the establishment of a full-fledged Palestinian state.

Securitizing the Solution Completely:

The plan’s center of gravity is security: disarmament, international monitors, a stabilization force, and safe passages.

While the issues of sovereignty and national rights are left out, as if the Palestinians are merely a “population” in need of security control and services.

Personalizing the Process:

Trump's presence as chairman of the "Peace Council" reflects more of a showmanship than a political guarantee.

The inclusion of Tony Blair, known for his role in previous reconstruction projects that failed to achieve tangible progress, raises questions about its seriousness.

Talk of a prisoner exchange is a foregone conclusion to appease the Israeli public, while the Palestinian side is powerless and a matter of Netanyahu's hostility toward the State of Qatar.

The Absence of Legal and Political Guarantees: There is no binding international legal framework (such as Security Council resolutions) that guarantees implementation.

Israel is given clear roles, while its obligations are conditional and open to interpretation.

Third: Conclusion The plan is not "peace" in the political sense, but rather a conditional truce aimed at: Disarming Hamas and removing it from the political scene.

Reconstructing Gaza with international funding within what could be an Arab transitional governance managed from abroad. Securing the borders of Israel and Egypt.

What Trump is waging is a psychological war, in which he is joined by the Israelis and many Arab media outlets, to depress the people of Gaza once and for all.

This is an unrealistic opportunity, and it can be said that Netanyahu has agreed to Trump's proposal, and the ball is now in the court of the Palestinians and the Arabs.

There are no details in the Trump plan; it merely serves to rescue Netanyahu, vent the anger of the people, and distract from efforts to recognize Palestine. The central Palestinian issue—statehood, sovereignty, and the unity of the land and people—is absent.

Hence, it can be said that the plan represents short- to medium-term crisis management, not a strategic solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Dr. Hisham Okal - Professor of Crisis Management and International Relations