‘Not a Roadmap for Peace, But a Framework for Control’: Analyst on Trump’s Gaza Ceasefire Plan
The White House announced a 20-point plan to end the Israeli genocide in Gaza following talks between US President Donald Trump and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday. The proposal, presented at a joint press conference in Washington, pledges a phased Israeli withdrawal from Gaza once Hamas is disarmed, and promises an immediate halt to fighting.
The plan includes several conditions. Among them are the release of all Israeli captives within 72 hours, the demilitarization of Gaza, and the introduction of international or Arab peacekeeping forces. Oversight would fall to a new “Board of Peace” comprised of leaders from Israel, the US, and regional Arab countries.
Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, ongoing since October 2023, has so far killed more than 66,000 Palestinians and left more than 167,000 people injured.
Read More:
Trump underscored his support for Israel during the announcement, again rejecting the idea of Palestinian statehood and reaffirming his recognition of occupied al-Quds as the Israeli regime’s capital.
Netanyahu welcomed the proposal, while the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank and several Arab governments expressed cautious approval. Hamas said it was reviewing the plan “in good faith,” but the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) movement condemned it outright as “a recipe to blow up the region.”
Against this backdrop, Rami Abu Zubaydah, a military and security affairs analyst, offered a critical reading of the plan in a commentary carried by Palestinian media. He wrote that the initiative should not be seen as a final solution but as a “new model of crisis management” designed to reengineer Gaza’s political and security order.
“The essence of this plan,” Abu Zubaydah argued, “is to move the equation from occupation versus resistance to international security management.”
Read More:
He warned that the core trade-off—disarmament in exchange for Israeli withdrawal—creates serious risks for Palestinians. By making withdrawal conditional, he explained, Israel retains the option to halt or reverse its pullout whenever it claims that disarmament measures have failed or that monitoring has broken down.
Abu Zubaydah further warned that the framework introduces new pretexts for renewed Israeli operations. “Any failure in the monitoring process, or a field incident such as the discovery of mass graves, leftover explosives, or local clashes, could be used as justification to resume bombardment,” he noted.
International forces, he added, often lack both the mandate and the capacity to respond rapidly in such circumstances, leaving Gaza vulnerable.
The analyst also questioned the neutrality of the proposed peacekeepers. According to him, the insertion of international or Arab forces could “in practice become an extension of the Israeli security system” through intelligence coordination and operational alignment. This, he said, would erode the field effectiveness of Palestinian resistance groups and tilt the balance further in Israel’s favor.
Read More:
Beyond the battlefield, Abu Zubaydah drew attention to potential legal and political consequences. He cautioned that labeling resistance as terrorism under international law could pave the way for widespread arrests and targeted operations against Palestinian leaders and activists.
“The danger is not only in restricting weapons,” he wrote, “but in creating a new political and legal framework that may turn Gaza into a territory under permanent international supervision.”
Abu Zubaydah concluded that Trump’s initiative should not be mistaken for a peace plan. Rather, he said, it amounts to “the imposition of international or regional tutelage over Gaza, depriving Palestinian society and resistance movements of decision-making tools and legitimacy.”
4307913
