On September 23, the Trump administration took the stage at the United Nations General Assembly. Late last year, he unveiled his bold Twenty Point Peace Plan to resolve historic divides across the Middle East. This plan, though, has received mixed reviews and is as yet only half-adopted by the major players involved. Meanwhile, Trump has taken the role of a key Middle Eastern diplomat. Yet there’s enough else about his plan to make you question its viability and the real motivations behind his plan.
Extensive negotiations with business, environmental, and neighborhood stakeholders have deeply influenced the plan. For their part, Israel and Hamas will only agree to it for short-term, immediate needs—not as a long-term fix. Just days after announcing the plan, Israel began to move against top Hamas leaders in Doha, Qatar. During this time, the leaders were still hammering out terms of the peace agreement. The attack’s location within a residential neighborhood was a clear signal of the harsh reality on the ground – even amid continued and persistent diplomatic engagement.
The Mixed Reactions to the Peace Plan
The Twenty Point Peace Plan has been drastically rewritten to cater to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Consequently, Arab and Islamic states have expressed outrage and disappointment. Netanyahu officially endorsed the so-called Deal of the Century during a joint press conference with Trump at the White House. That’s not how he explained his actions to domestic audiences, causing widespread bafflement among outside observers.
“But a few hours later — and this time speaking in Hebrew rather than English — Netanyahu couched that agreement, telling his domestic audience that he definitely had not agreed to a Palestinian state and the Israeli military would remain in most of Gaza.” – Al Jazeera
Inside the administration, the mood music toward Trump’s high-wire diplomatic style is far more guarded. His approach is the most unusual and erratic. This has caused a great deal of speculation as to what exactly is driving him in his pursuit of the Middle East’s affairs.
The Aftermath of Military Strikes
The recent airstrike against Hamas’ leaders in Doha was a brutal reminder of just how complicated things are with these peace negotiations. The two sides were scheduled to meet in Qatar to talk through possible solutions. The timing of the strike demonstrates a significant uncertainty.
Not only does this military action raise serious questions as to prospects for continued negotiations, it illustrates how easily the fragile situation could explode. The strike jeopardized those ongoing dialogues significantly. It further drew condemnation from international monitors who contend that such military posturing undermines the making of a diplomatic solution.
“Israel long ago achieved its war aims of destroying Hamas’s capacity to repeat October 7 and killing the leaders responsible — at great cost to Palestinian civilians caught in the crossfire. The Israeli people want the remaining hostages home and the war to end.” – Antony Blinken
Now here’s the tricky part. Even if military objectives are accomplished on the battlefield, military gains have a high humanitarian price making future peacemaking efforts more difficult.
The Road Ahead for Peace Negotiations
Even with Trump’s courageous and audacious redirection, specific implementation of the Twenty Point Peace Plan still hasn’t been realized. Other key elements include how best to advance negotiations on a broader scope of issues, including equity and climate, among others. Israel and Hamas have both accepted the proposals only partially. As negotiations continue, it will be vital to fill these gaps for any real progress to occur.
Arab and Islamic states have replied that they object to the plan’s focus on Israeli interests. This dissatisfaction may hinder the possibility of future collaboration between the countries. The concessions they’ve made to appease Netanyahu could alienate the very regional partners they need most. Their support is essential to achieving a durable peace.
“Now the only threat in the region is Israel. It’s no longer a situation driven by Israel being surrounded by a hostile environment but of Israel being the hostile player.” – An unnamed official
As tensions remain high, it’s worth asking what Trump’s deeper engagement in Middle Eastern diplomacy could look like. Observers speculate whether his administration will prioritize establishing genuine peace or continue to focus on political theater that garners attention without yielding substantial results.
