Afrasianet - The White House has unveiled a 20-point document described as a "peace plan" signed by U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The plan was presented as the "beginning of a new era" for Gaza, promising a cessation of the war and the launch of large-scale reconstruction.
But a careful reading, in light of 100 years of Palestinian experiences and tragedies, reveals that what is marketed as a solution is nothing but a reproduction of familiar cycles of compromise and abandonment: from the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the partition resolution (1947), to the Oslo Accords (1993), to what is now called the "Trump Project." This raises a fundamental question: What does this plan carry in its details?
What does the plan say?
On the face of it, the Trump-Netanyahu plan carries flashy promises: to stop the war and open a path to peace. But beneath this humanitarian façade are hidden clauses that carry grave political risks, as it conflates temptation with negligence.
• First, an immediate ceasefire is offered as a humanitarian entry point to stop the bloodshed in Gaza, but is conditional on subsequent steps that make it a tentative truce rather than a binding agreement, as if it were a test of the Palestinians' ability to submit to new conditions.
• Second, the complete disarmament of Hamas under international control is the heart of the plan. Here, the weapon of resistance turns into an "obstacle" that must be dismantled, while the occupation remains armed and fortified, which confirms that peace here is not a balance but a surrender.
• Third, the exchange of prisoners and hostages is presented as a humanitarian step, but it establishes a false parity between thousands of Palestinian prisoners – many of whom have been arbitrarily detained – and Israeli hostages, in the context of an ongoing war, making it an unfair exchange on the ground.
• Fourth, the Israeli withdrawal is presented as a conditional reward and not as an inherent right. Any Palestinian violation of the conditions gives the occupation the right to stay, and turns the withdrawal into a continuous pressure card rather than a step towards liberation.
• Fifth, a transitional administration through an international "peace council" represents the most dangerous item in the plan, as Gaza is placed under direct tutelage under the leadership of the United States, under the supervision of prominent figures such as Tony Blair, in a scene that repeats the experiences of history, where the "transitional government" turns permanent, and opens the door to separating Gaza from the West Bank, and emptying the national project of its essence.
• Sixth, major reconstruction is offered as a "prize," but it is conditional. Money and projects are managed from abroad and used as a tool of extortion: accepting political conditions in exchange for reconstruction, or denying it.
• Finally, the most dangerous condition is Trump's direct threat: the plan is not a just peace option, but an explicit warning; accepting the terms opens the door to aid, and rejecting it gives Israel the green light to continue the war with full American support.
With these provisions, the plan transforms from a mere project of reconstruction or a ceasefire into a tight political game, dressed in the cloak of peace slogans, but deep down it hides new tools for imposing a long-term tutelage and dismantling the Palestinian national project.
It is not a passing humanitarian or political agreement, but rather a strategic step to rearrange the rules of control and reformulate the Palestinian national project within a new form of trusteeship.
Through mechanisms such as the establishment of a direct international administration for Gaza affairs, and linking reconstruction to political and security conditions, humanitarian promises are transformed into tools of political pressure, making the plan more than just a relief plan, but a road map to rebuild the political reality in a way that serves external interests at the expense of the national will.
These complex dimensions force us to move on to an in-depth reading of the demining of the plan item by clause, in order to understand the strategy behind its slogans, and to reveal beyond its humanitarian and security interface.
Mine dismantling
Before we dive into the details of the plan, we must realize that what is being presented today is not just a proposal for reconstruction or a transient political agreement, but rather a deliberate extension of historical policy formulas that have been repeated over decades, with the same core goals and presented in new, more convincing and mobilized ways.
This plan is not a coincidence or a random collection of items, but rather a network of carefully designed strategic mines and traps, which aim not only to manage an urgent crisis, but also to reproduce a long experience of marginalizing Palestinian rights and turning the national project into a technical file and a phased agenda on the way to aborting it and forcing it once and for all.
Each item is not a passing event, but rather a cornerstone of an integrated system that seeks to reshape the political reality under a new cover: humanitarian and security slogans hidden behind long-term guardianship mechanisms and a new political division.
These mines are nothing but tools in a larger plan aimed at establishing a reality that legitimizes control and prolongs the occupation, through a series of conditions, postponements, and decisions that are presented as humanitarian solutions.
Therefore, in order to face this reality, it is not enough to just read the plan superficially, but it requires an in-depth reading and careful deciphering its mines item by item, in order to understand the strategic map of the dangers it hides and reveal the real intentions behind its formulation.
From here, the analysis moves us to the next stage: the removal of the mines hidden in the text of the plan, where the items are unfolding as precise strategic tools aimed at systematically reshaping the Palestinian reality, while hiding direct threats to the Palestinian national project and sovereignty behind a humanitarian and security cover.
This process is not limited to redrawing the map of control, but also touches on the essence of the Palestinian issue in its political and humanitarian dimensions, revealing how this plan is not just a phased agreement, but is part of a long process that reshapes the future of the Palestinians with a vision that imposes restrictions on their right to self-determination:
The "Interim Mint" – From a Temporary Promise to a Permanent Reality
History teaches us that temporary phrases often turn into permanent rules. From the Balfour Declaration to the Oslo Accords, Palestinians have witnessed how administrative promises have been transformed into political realities that constrain national demands.
Today, the International Transitional Council (STC) proposes in the new plan a model that appears temporary, but carries operational and administrative powers that ensure continuity, which threatens to create an administrative and political separation between Gaza and the West Bank, and turn the so-called "transitional phase" into a permanent reality that marginalizes the unity of the national project.
The mine of "converting rights into technical and security items"
Palestinian history is replete with attempts to dwarf political rights to security or technical issues, stripping them of their political essence. Today, the demand to disarm Hamas is becoming a prerequisite for reconstruction, while the debate about the weapons of occupation or the end of the control mechanisms does not open.
The result: the marginalization of the political dimension of the resistance, and the reduction of rights to a security administration that keeps control in the hands of the stronger party.
The mine of "economic temptation vs. political abandonment"
This minefield is the most dangerous part of the plan, because it reproduces a historic trade-off: promises of prosperity in exchange for the surrender of rights.
From the Balfour Declaration, through development projects conditional on the abandonment of basic rights, to the Oslo Accords, which made the Palestinian Authority tied to international funding in exchange for freezing core issues, today, the Trump-Netanyahu plan offers the promise of a "new Riviera" and comprehensive reconstruction, in exchange for the disarmament of Gaza and its administration under international bodies, meaning that the most basic rights of the Palestinians have become a tool of political blackmail.
The expected outcome: a fragile economy, absolute dependency, and issues of liberalization and sovereignty on the margins.
The mine of "postponing substantive issues"
Postponing major issues to a "later stage" was and still is a way to prolong the occupation and reshape reality. Previous agreements such as the Oslo Accords embodied this tactic, and today the plan repeats it with a more enticing formulation, while leaving the core files hanging without a time limit or guarantees.
The result: reconstruction without sovereignty, a ceasefire without a solution to the conflict, and the transformation of the transitional period into an end in itself, perpetuating the loss of the national project.
The "International Trusteeship and Political Cleanup" Mine
The proposal to form an international council to administer Gaza is nothing but a new guardianship in a contemporary form. This proposal presents itself under the banner of neutrality and technology, but it legitimizes the exclusion of Palestinian forces and gives the decision to external parties.
The result: the transformation of the Gaza administration into a subordinate entity, isolated from the national will, and an administrative separation that threatens the unity of the Palestinian national project.
"The threat of violence as a negotiation tool" mine
Palestinian history is replete with experiments in using force to impose political conditions, and today the same equation is repeated more clearly: the plan is presented with an explicit warning that any refusal will be met with full military support.
The result: the logic of acquiescence to force is tightened, and the idea that peace is possible only through submission, not through just rights.
The mine of "administrative division and national wear"
Every plan like this is essentially aimed at fragmenting the national project by dividing the people and the land. Since the "village links" project through autonomy, the goal has been to turn the Palestinians into local entities without sovereignty. The new plan repeats the same approach: the establishment of a separate administration for Gaza that serves the interests of the occupation and perpetuates division, weakening any prospect for true national unity.
Ultimately, this analysis leads us to a fundamental conclusion that enables us to understand the underlying idea behind this project, and to understand that it is not just a temporary agreement, but a deliberate step in a long-term strategy to reshape the Palestinian reality and control its course.
The Bottom Line: Update the Tools to Keep the Problem Running
The basic idea that emerges through the plan is that it is not just a proposal to resolve a specific conflict, but rather an elaborate update of the tools for managing the Palestinian issue, not its abolition or resolution.
The modern technology provided by the plan is: an international council for the administration of Gaza, huge reconstruction projects, smart media marketing, prominent international names that give the plan a new façade, but the political essence remains the same: managing the issue instead of ending it, postponing issues of fate, and turning basic rights into security conditions.
These new tools are only a façade for a long line of plans to prolong the occupation and turn the Nakba into an ongoing tragedy.
The next step is to see the plan as part of a broader strategy to reorder the Middle East. This strategy is based on several interrelated axes:
• First, regional normalization: The administrative division proposed by the plan places Gaza under international administration and isolates it from the West Bank, weakening the Palestinian cause as a unified political project.
This rupture makes it easy to present normalization between Israel and Arab states as a "humanitarian step" or an "economic peace," without a unified Palestinian force capable of aborting this process. The deal thus becomes not a peace deal, but rather an entrance to gradual normalization under the roof of an international administration, away from unified Palestinian pressure.
• Second, energy security and economic resources: the reconstruction of Gaza and the establishment of massive economic projects, which can be used as an economic linkage and regional integration tool that serves the interests of Israel and its supporters.
This includes linking reconstruction projects to partnerships with major corporations and wealthy countries, and possibly integrating Gaza as an economic hub into energy networks, ports, and trade corridors.
These projects give outside powers a means to monitor Gaza's economy and politics, and turn economic dependence into a long-term political pressure mechanism.
• Third, the axes of regional influence: the introduction of an international council for the administration of Gaza that reformulates the concept of Palestinian sovereignty within the framework of an international tutelage, which has profound implications for the political map of the region.
The international management of the sector is not just a domestic event, but a strategic step in a broader project to redistribute influence in the Middle East, with Washington and Western countries playing a central role, while using tools such as economic and political normalization to control the region.
The immediate and intermediate consequences of such a course can be summed up in five main dimensions:
1. Establishing a long-term custodianship status: a temporary external administration that could become a permanent reality, meaning decades of managing projects and policies from the outside, and keeping Palestinians out of the way of their own destiny.
2. Fragmentation of the national project: Separating Gaza from the West Bank undermines negotiating power and weakens the ability to establish a unified Palestinian state.
3. Westernization of economics and politics: Reconstruction projects are subject to the conditions of foreign investors and countries, which weakens the ability to build an independent sovereign economy.
4. Erosion of basic rights: Fundamental rights, including the right of return and sovereignty over land, are being turned into deferred cases or economic reparations, while the occupation remains unresolved.
5. Weakening political and social resistance: Stripping local actors of their political and military tools aims to dismantle the networks of societal resistance that pose real pressure on the occupation.
The plan, then, is not just an agreement or a document, but is part of a comprehensive strategy to redraw the balance of power in the region. It places the Palestinian issue in a permanent administration, turning the conflict into a humanitarian and administrative issue rather than a political issue related to national rights.
In this context, accepting or rejecting the plan becomes a test not only of the Palestinian position, but also of the ability of any national project to withstand an integrated system of political, economic, and international pressures.
What should a smart Palestinian response be?
A smart Palestinian response must be built on a deep understanding of the nature of the challenge posed by the Trump-Netanyahu plan, and on a Palestinian strategic capability that unites the parties and transforms the confrontation into a realistic plan of action.
Symbolic rejection is not enough, but it must be supported by clear red lines that define national conditions: no real reconstruction can be accepted unless it is accompanied by a clear timetable for the withdrawal of troops and a full transfer of Palestinian control of the ports, which means the restoration of sovereignty over the land and not just economic or humanitarian projects without guarantees.
The challenge requires a unified Palestinian representation, which rejects any administration imposed from outside without the full participation of Palestinian national institutions, including resistance factions, the National Council, judicial institutions, and civil society representatives.
Unity is not a formal demand, but rather a strategic weapon that blocks attempts to divide the Palestinian ranks and impose a new reality under administrative titles.
Linking reconstruction to sovereignty should be a basic rule. Financing contracts and projects should be drafted with conditions that ensure the gradual transfer of ownership and operational capacity to Palestinian institutions, through clear and tight mechanisms, so that reconstruction does not turn into a tool of extortion or tutelage, but rather a step on the road to restoring national sovereignty.
At the legal and political level, the Palestinian movement should pursue this plan in international forums and impose binding executive conditions to ensure that it does not slip into a permanent foreign administration.
This includes going to the Security Council, the International Court of Justice, and international human rights organizations, to establish the principle that national rights are not negotiable.
At the same time, there must be a media and international counter-campaign, aimed at exposing the mechanisms of political and economic blackmail, exposing the background of the plan and the history of similar formulas that the Palestinians have gone through, in order to build international and local awareness that this is not a peace plan, but a long-term rearrangement project that makes the Palestinians hostage to a foreign administration.
This campaign must be based on a documented historical narrative, legal evidence, and an elaborate media strategy aimed at breaking the advertising cover of the plan and turning it into a case of collective national and international rejection.
With this strategy, the Palestinians can turn rejection into a political and human rights force capable of resisting the project of regional rearrangement and returning the Palestinian cause to the heart of the equation, instead of becoming a file managed from abroad.
Dr. Mohammed Al-Senussi - Professor of Forward-Looking Studies and International Affairs at Mohammed V University in Morocco.