Trump’s Gaza Plan: Does it signal a shift in policy?

Several indicators surrounding the President Trump’s recent proposal to halt the war in Gaza were seen as reflecting possible new intentions and a serious move. While the plan itself still carries the familiar signs of American bias toward Israel, the initial Arab and Western acceptance of it, albeit with reservations and questions, reveals a genuine readiness to cooperate with Trump in order to reach a ceasefire. It is widely known that the United States is capable and has the leverage to force Israel to stop the war, not only because this is a fact rooted in a uniquely dependent relationship built over decades, but also because of America’s standing as the world’s first power.

The continued war in Gaza, with all the moral and humanitarian catastrophes, has become not only Israel’s ethical burden and responsibilities, but also America’s. Today, Washington stands increasingly isolated as Israel’s unconditional supporter and defender. The mass departure of delegates from the UN General Assembly hall before Prime Minister Netanyahu took the podium a week ago symbolised the depth of international rejection of Israel’s war on Gaza.

Some recent developments reflect a significant shift in Washigton position towards the continuous Gaza’s war. For instance, the last Trump’s rejection of annexing the West Bank, which directly contradicted Netanyahu and his government’s long-standing agenda, and Washington’s reaction of Israel’s attack on Qatar, which ultimately forced Netanyahu to apologise, as well as the details of Trump’s latest plan for Gaza, which differs markedly from Washington’s previous proposals, are all important signals for this new shift.

READ: Hamas agrees with Trump’s Gaza ceasefire plan ‘in principle’: Senior official

 Earlier American initiatives focused on ideas that raised deep suspicion. One plan, presented earlier this year, revealed an ambition to seize the enclave, govern it directly, and permanently or semi-permanently displace its population, turning Gaza into a so-called “Middle East Riviera.” Another floated proposal in the White House centered on transforming Gaza into a “smart economic zone” while encouraging “voluntary resettlement” of its people, offering incentives for them to leave during reconstruction. Meanwhile, other American initiatives concentrated on temporary truces, short-lived ceasefires, and prisoner exchanges without engaging seriously in the details of ending the war itself. As it were, the American rhetoric continued to oscillate between “temporary proposals” and “voluntary resettlement.” But, all of these schemes collapsed under the continued war in Gaza  and the overwhelming international rejection of this war.

By contrast, Trump’s September plan appeared more integrated, addressing not only the conditions for ending the war but also the arrangements for what follows. Additionally, his new proposal does not mention displacement or an American administration of Gaza which mark a more pragmatic tone and realistic approach to end the war. In parallel, the plan’s mention to transfer Gaza’s administration ultimetltly to the Palestinian Authority, after reforms, is in direct opposition to Netanyahu’s vision, which seeks to keep both the PA and Hamas away from Gaza and to block any prospect for Palestinian statehood.

In fact, the plan still suffers from serious loopholes. It is riddled with ambiguities, it provides no details about the “Peace Council”, its composition and powers, which are all left undefined. Also, the plan offers no maps, no timelines for Israeli withdrawal, and little clarity on how Gaza would be governed. This explains why Trump’s plan falls short of the real aspirations for Palestinians, and even for most Arab and Western governments. It also explains why it drew cautious endorsements, and why some parties accepted it conditionally, raising serious questions. 

READ: Hamas ‘ready for a lasting peace,’ Israel ‘must immediately stop the bombing of Gaza’: Trump

Even if Trump’s plan does not meet Palestinian ambitions, or even the broader Arab and Western hopes for an end to the war, it nonetheless offers a foundation that can be built upon. Western responses highlighted its shortcomings but also hinted at paths for improvement. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen emphasised the urgent need for immediate humanitarian measures. French President Emmanuel Macron insisted Israel must firmly engage with the framework. France’s Foreign Ministry linked it explicitly to wider regional diplomacy, as reflected in the recent New York conference. Germany stressed the need for concrete, actionable steps, signaling unease with the plan’s current vagueness, especially concerning the Peace Council. Spain’s welcome was tied to the principle of a two-state solution, suggesting that Trump’s mention of Palestinian self-rule in Gaza and a possible role for the PA could be expanded into a more robust vision. Taken together, these responses sketch an outline of how the plan could be strengthened: clarity, enforceable timelines, and anchoring it in an internationally supported vision for Palestinian self-determination.

Indeed, there are clear overlaps between Trump’s plan and the New York Declaration, backed by Saudi Arabia, France and most of the UN, which could serve as a foundation for making Trump’s framework more implementable with international support. Both documents agree on the necessity of ending the war, but Trump’s plan conditions a ceasefire on a negotiated agreement between the parties, while the New York Declaration demands an immediate and permanent end to the war. Trump proposes a phased Israeli withdrawal, whereas the Declaration calls for full and immediate withdrawal. Trump’s plan does not set clear benchmarks for Israeli disengagement, while the New York Declaration calls for a binding timetable. Both frameworks also address prisoner exchanges and the question of Hamas, but Trump leaves their future vague, and the Declaration sets firmer terms. Before transfer to Palestinian hands, Trump suggests interim governance under his personal oversight, and the Declaration envisions a temporary UN-led international administration. Trump’s rejection of annexing the West Bank, though his plan remains focused primarily on Gaza, also somewhat echoes the international consensus on a two-state solution, as reaffirmed by the New York Declaration. The international declaration seems more practical in how it frames these issues, even if they remain primarily internal Palestinian matters. Further more, these gaps are not unbridgeable, they are negotiable, and could be bridged with the help of allies. Then comes the harder work of shaping what follows whether through Trump’s plan, the New York Declaration, or a fusion of both. 

No one should mistake Trump’s proposal for a breakthrough. It does not fulfill Palestinian hopes, nor does it guarantee an end to the cycle of destruction, but it contains elements worth seizing. For Palestinians, the first and most urgent priority is simple: stop the killing. Also, there is a sense that even Washington feels the war has to end. Finally, it remains to be seen how the Tramp plan, if accepted by all parties, will unfold, and how much of it will be implemented, taking into account Tramp’s habit of changing his mind, the hidden agenda of Natanyahu, and the complexity of the situation on the ground. 

OPINION: A surge of recognition and a glimmer of hope

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.