Introduction: A Fragile Hope for Peace
After nearly two years of devastating war in Gaza, a major U.S-led peace plan has been proposed, creating a critical moment for the region. The proposal directly involves the primary parties to the conflict—Israel and Hamas—with the United States acting as the main broker.
The purpose of this article is to break down the key parts of this complex proposal, explain what each side is being asked to do, and explore the major challenges that lie ahead.
Before examining the political framework, it is crucial to understand the immense human stakes that make this deal so critical.
1. The Human Cost: Why a Deal is So Urgent
To understand the peace plan, it is essential to first grasp the scale of the crisis in Gaza after two years of war. For the 2.3 million residents of the enclave, the conflict has resulted in a complete societal collapse, illustrated by the following statistics:
1.1 Casualties:
The Palestinian death toll has topped 67,000 after the ministry recently added more than 700 verified names to its list. Over 110,000 more have been injured.
1.2 Displacement:
An estimated 1.9 million Palestinians have been internally displaced, forced to flee their homes with nowhere safe to go.
1.3 Infrastructure Damage:
The destruction is nearly total, with an estimated $16.3 billion in damage to housing and 95% of schools destroyed or repurposed as shelters.
1.4 Economic Collapse:
The economy has been shattered, with the unemployment rate soaring to 80%, leaving the vast majority of the population without a livelihood.
For those on the ground, high-level negotiations feel disconnected from the daily reality of survival. The voices of Gazans reveal a deep exhaustion and a simple desire for the violence to end.
"We hear about understandings and truces, but the planes never leave the sky." - Mohammed Abu Rayala, 46
"People only want a real truce. We are not concerned with American plans or political negotiations. All we want is one day without bombing." - Ibrahim Abu Shawish
This desperate humanitarian reality is the driving force behind the international community's urgent push for a detailed proposal for peace.
2. The Core of the Proposal: What Each Side Must Do
The U.S.-led 20-point plan serves as the central framework for a potential ceasefire and a long-term resolution. It outlines a clear set of reciprocal actions required from both Hamas and Israel to de-escalate the conflict and begin the process of rebuilding.
2.1 A Summary of the Peace Deal's Core Terms
| What Hamas Is Asked to Do | What Israel Is Asked to Do |
| Release all 48 hostages (20 believed to be alive, plus the remains of 28 others) within a 72-hour window. | Enact an immediate ceasefire and halt all bombing operations in Gaza. |
| Disarm and decommission all weapons, destroying all military infrastructure under the supervision of independent monitors. | Conduct a phased withdrawal of all military forces from the Gaza Strip, based on agreed-upon milestones. |
| Cede all governing authority in Gaza, transferring administration to an independent technocratic body. | Release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, including 250 individuals currently serving life sentences. |
2.2 What Happens if Both Sides Agree?
If the core terms are accepted and implemented, the plan outlines several immediate outcomes designed to stabilize the region and begin the recovery process.
2.3 Full Humanitarian Aid:
Large amounts of aid would be allowed to flow into Gaza, with distribution managed by neutral international bodies like the U.N. and the Red Crescent to ensure it reaches civilians.
2.4 International Oversight:
An "International Stabilization Force" (ISF), formed by the U.S., Egypt, and Jordan, would be created to ensure security and oversee disarmament. A "Board of Peace," chaired by the U.S. President, would be established to supervise Gaza's administration.
2.5 Reconstruction Begins:
A massive, internationally-funded reconstruction effort would commence to rebuild housing, hospitals, schools, and essential infrastructure.
While the plan outlines a clear sequence of events, its success hinges on overcoming significant disagreements and reservations from both parties.
3. The Sticking Points: Why a Final Deal Remains Elusive?
Although the proposal offers a potential path out of the conflict, both sides have expressed major reservations, and the deal itself has been mired in controversy. Understanding these points of contention is key to grasping the immense challenges that mediators face.
3.1 Hamas's "Yes, But..." Response
Hamas delivered a "partial" acceptance of the plan, which one analyst described as a "tactical retreat, not a strategic surrender."
The group is strategically partitioning the deal, agreeing to the immediate humanitarian terms while deferring the most difficult political and military issues.
As Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouq explained, the group is focused on the plan’s initial points concerning the ceasefire and aid, while broader issues must be decided by a "unified Palestinian national framework."
This approach allows Hamas to signal flexibility while holding firm on its core demands, many of which are direct responses to recent changes in the deal.
3.2 Agreed In Principle:
Releasing all Israeli hostages and handing administration of Gaza to a technocratic body.
3.3 Major Objections/Conditions:
Hamas’s official response makes no mention of disarmament and demands a complete and total Israeli withdrawal, rejecting the phased approach.
It also rejects the "Board of Peace" as a form of external control. As will be shown, these objections align perfectly with last-minute changes made to the proposal at Israel’s request.
3.4 Israel's Cautious Reaction
Israel has reacted warily, linking its continued military operations to its demand for verifiable security measures.
Despite U.S. calls to halt strikes, operations have continued, which Israel justifies by insisting on "ironclad security guarantees" and "enforceable commitments" that Hamas cannot rearm.
Officials have stressed that they "cannot accept mere words" and will judge the deal on its enforceability. Furthermore, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reiterated his opposition to a Palestinian state, a potential long-term outcome hinted at in the proposal.
3.5 Controversy Over the Deal's Final Version
The diplomatic process was severely complicated by reports that the final version of the deal presented to Hamas was "significantly different" from one previously discussed with Arab and Muslim partners.
According to reports in Axios and The Times of Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu secured "significant 11th-hour changes," which directly address the primary sticking points for Hamas:
3.6 Limited Withdrawal:
The updated plan includes a map showing that even after a phased withdrawal, Israeli troops would remain in over a third of the Gaza Strip and would establish a security buffer zone along the entire perimeter. This directly contradicts Hamas's demand for a complete withdrawal.
3.7 Stricter Disarmament Terms:
The new version added a requirement that Hamas members must also "decommission their weapons" to be granted amnesty. This hardening of terms helps explain Hamas's strategic silence on the issue of disarmament.
These changes reportedly angered international partners, including Qatar, with one official stating, "This is not what we agreed on... This is the Netanyahu plan."
With trust eroded by these last-minute changes and core demands still miles apart, the entire peace process now rests on a diplomatic knife's edge.
4. Conclusion: A Fragile Diplomatic Opening
A potential pathway to peace has opened, but it is extremely fragile and fraught with obstacles.
Hamas has demonstrated a degree of flexibility by agreeing in principle to release hostages and step away from governing, but its core demands for a complete Israeli withdrawal—and its silence on disarmament—remain far from Israel's non-negotiable security requirements.
Mediators now face the difficult task of bridging these fundamental gaps, which appear to have been widened by the very text of the proposal.
With indirect talks set to begin in Egypt, the diplomatic effort moves forward against the "unrelenting backdrop of war," testing the ability of all parties to find a consensus and end a conflict that has devastated millions of lives.
Post a Comment