The Middle East has seen a dramatic turn of events in recent days. Hamas has made a rare gesture of goodwill, and Israel has, for the first time, issued an apology to Qatar. These unexpected signs of reconciliation amid the chaos have brought a faint glimmer of hope to the nearly two-year-long Gaza war. At the center of this shift lies U.S. President Donald Trump’s newly announced “Gaza 20-Point Peace Plan.”
The Gaza 20-Point Peace Plan
On September 29, Trump officially unveiled his 20-point plan aimed at achieving a comprehensive ceasefire, securing the release of hostages, and establishing a new political and security framework for Gaza’s future governance.
The plan’s core measures include:
-
An immediate ceasefire.
-
The release of all hostages and the return of bodies within 72 hours.
-
A phased withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.
-
The disarmament of Hamas and the relocation of its armed members outside the territory.
Beyond security arrangements, the plan also introduces a U.S.-led blueprint for Gaza’s reconstruction. All humanitarian aid would enter Gaza under the supervision of the United Nations and the Red Cross, focusing on rebuilding infrastructure, healthcare, and public services. Tunnels, weapons factories, and terrorist facilities would be dismantled and destroyed under international monitoring to ensure complete demilitarization.
A “multinational stabilization force” composed of the U.S. and several Arab nations would be deployed to maintain order, manage border control, and train Palestinian police units to ensure that Gaza no longer poses a security threat.
For governance, Gaza would be managed by a “technocratic Palestinian Transitional Council” overseen by a newly formed “Peace Council” chaired by Trump himself. Members would include international political figures such as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, tasked with coordinating reconstruction and governance.
Initial Responses from Both Sides
Following the plan’s announcement, intense diplomatic activity began. On October 3, Trump declared that Israel had agreed to establish an initial 1.5 to 3.5 km “withdrawal line” inside Palestinian territory. However, he emphasized that most Israeli troops would remain in Gaza until Hamas was fully disarmed.
That same night, Hamas released a statement expressing willingness to release all Israeli hostages and the remains of those killed, signaling readiness to enter negotiations “through mediating nations.” In an unexpected move, Hamas also indicated openness to handing over Gaza’s governance to a “technocratic government based on Palestinian national consensus, supported by Arab and Islamic countries.”
Still, Hamas has not explicitly accepted Israel’s key conditions, especially regarding disarmament and its exclusion from Gaza’s future administration. Its statement also avoided commenting on Trump’s clause barring Hamas from any role in governance, instead reiterating that Israel must halt all military operations and withdraw completely.
Senior Hamas official Moussa Abu Marzouk told reporters that they had “accepted all major elements of the U.S. proposal but that every item requires further discussion.” He added that disarmament could only be considered “after the end of the occupation and once Palestinians can govern themselves.” This suggests that while the ceasefire appears possible, fundamental disputes remain unresolved.
Currently, Israeli and Hamas delegations are meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, for a new round of ceasefire talks. As of October 8 (Australian time), discussions have focused on Israel’s withdrawal map and prisoner exchange mechanisms. Hamas insists that hostage releases must be directly tied to Israel’s full withdrawal timetable, and that any ceasefire agreement must come with genuine guarantees from the U.S. and regional powers.
To accelerate talks, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff is expected to arrive in Egypt on Wednesday, joined by Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed Al Thani and Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin.
From Diplomatic Isolation to Seeking an “Exit Strategy”
The Gaza war, which began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas attacked southern Israel, has dragged on for nearly two years, becoming one of the most devastating and protracted conflicts in recent history. Israeli retaliatory strikes have caused unprecedented destruction and a humanitarian catastrophe. According to Gaza’s Health Ministry, over 60,000 Palestinians have been killed, and essential infrastructure — hospitals, electricity, and water systems — has nearly collapsed.
While Israel claims to have severely weakened Hamas’s military capabilities, it has failed to secure a decisive victory. The prolonged war has reached the point of diminishing returns — the higher the military and political cost, the fewer tangible results. Mounting casualties and domestic unrest have eroded both Israeli morale and international sympathy. Several Western nations, including the U.K., Canada, and Australia, have now recognized the State of Palestine or condemned Israel for violating international humanitarian law. Even Washington — Israel’s closest ally — is facing growing diplomatic and political strain.
Tensions escalated further when Israel mistakenly fired a missile into Qatar, a key mediator and home to the largest U.S. base in the Middle East. The strike, which killed several civilians including the son of Hamas negotiator Khalil al-Hayya, drew sharp backlash from Doha and Washington. With global support waning and isolation deepening, Israel is under immense pressure to find an “off-ramp” — and Trump’s “20-point plan” may offer exactly that.
Netanyahu’s Political Dilemma
Domestically, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces unprecedented pressure. Anti-war protests have erupted across Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, demanding a ceasefire, the release of hostages, and accountability for the military’s actions. Polls show that over 60% of Israelis disapprove of Netanyahu’s wartime leadership.
His coalition — a fragile alliance of right-wing and ultra-religious factions — is deeply divided. The far-right demands continued military occupation of Gaza and rejects any negotiations, while moderates and senior defense officials advocate a temporary truce to prioritize hostage releases and postwar reconstruction talks. This internal split has left Netanyahu politically vulnerable: continuing the war could collapse his coalition, but agreeing to a ceasefire could brand him a “traitor.”
Last year, a short-lived U.S.-brokered truce collapsed within weeks after both sides accused each other of violations, leading to renewed Israeli operations that killed over 400 Palestinians. The episode exposed the disconnect between Israel’s government and military — a rift that still threatens current negotiations.
Unlike in Western democracies such as Australia, Israel’s military holds significant autonomy within its political system. Even if the government orders a ceasefire, field commanders may continue operations if they believe their missions are incomplete. During the previous truce, Israeli forces continued airstrikes in northern Gaza “to prevent Hamas regrouping,” killing hundreds — a reminder of the deep structural tensions within Israel’s security establishment, where “peace” is often seen as a strategic risk rather than a goal.
While external and internal pressures have pushed Israel to the negotiating table, achieving a lasting ceasefire remains uncertain. Critical questions — postwar reconstruction, Hamas’s political role, the scope of Israeli withdrawal, and Gaza’s future governance — are far from settled. Should talks collapse, the region could again spiral into violence.
Still, Israel’s willingness to engage in staged ceasefire talks under Trump’s framework marks a notable shift — an admission that military force alone cannot deliver security. When war yields only isolation and exhaustion, diplomacy becomes the only means of survival and rehabilitation.
Hamas Under Pressure and Reassessment
Hamas, too, faces mounting pressure. After nearly two years of war, its military and political capacities are in ruins. Gaza’s collapse is total — food, fuel, and medicine are scarce, and 80% of residents lack reliable access to food. Hospitals have shut down, and infectious diseases are spreading through overcrowded refugee camps. Public anger and despair are rising, and the demand to “end the war and return to normal life” grows louder each day.
Since late 2023, Israeli targeted strikes have decimated Hamas’s command structure, killing top figures such as Mohammed Deif and Marwan Issa. Many leaders have fled abroad, leaving local administrators — focused on civilian governance and aid coordination — in charge. These officials, more pragmatic than ideological, now view political survival and reconstruction as the only viable path forward.
Tensions between Hamas’s exiled leadership in Doha and Istanbul and its local Gaza leadership have widened. While exiles cling to hardline rhetoric, local leaders, witnessing the devastation firsthand, are increasingly inclined toward compromise. Regional allies such as Qatar and Turkey are also urging restraint. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has publicly called on Hamas to “show political maturity,” warning that continued fighting will only erode international support.
For Hamas, the war’s continuation means further suffering and loss of legitimacy among Palestinians. Under these conditions, Trump’s Gaza 20-Point Plan — despite its risks — offers a path of political survival and a last chance to avoid total marginalization.
Peace Through Transaction
Whether it’s disarming Hamas, deploying Arab peacekeepers, or placing Gaza under international trusteeship, many of these ideas have surfaced before — only to fail under political realities. Trump’s 20-point plan may seem like a repackaged version of earlier proposals, yet its rapid traction reflects his pragmatic timing and deal-making acumen.
Trump’s approach relies on pressure as leverage. Within months of taking office, his administration froze some military aid to Israel, cracked down on Hamas-linked financial networks, and warned mediating nations like Qatar and Egypt of “isolation” if they failed to cooperate. Though criticized as heavy-handed, these tactics forced all parties back to the negotiating table. Trump’s version of “peace” is not driven by morality, but by calculated pragmatism — making both sides realize that continuing the war costs more than compromise.
His “deal-making diplomacy” mirrors a cold business negotiation: clear terms, tight deadlines, and few emotions. When he announced Israel’s immediate halt to airstrikes last Friday — reportedly without prior notice to Netanyahu’s cabinet — it left Israel with no choice but to comply. Meanwhile, Hamas was told to respond by Sunday or face renewed U.S.-approved Israeli offensives. Trump’s peace, therefore, is less about justice than enforced submission — a harsh but effective pause to the bloodshed.
This recalls the ancient Chinese concept of “Zhao’an” (招安) — pacifying rebels through a mix of power and incentives, offering surrender as survival. Like the heroes of Water Margin accepting imperial amnesty, or warlords in Romance of the Three Kingdoms submitting when the balance of power shifted, both Hamas and Israel now seek self-preservation under Trump’s imposed order.
From a broader geopolitical lens, Trump’s strategy does not resolve the conflict’s root causes. Instead, it forces a temporary strategic pause — stabilizing the battlefield long enough to reshape the negotiation landscape. For Trump, this is both a foreign policy victory and political spectacle. For civilians trapped in Gaza, even a fragile ceasefire offers a precious glimpse of life beyond war.
Whatever the outcome of the 20-point negotiations, the world can only hope that the guns in Gaza will soon fall silent.