A Peace without Palestinians? Trump’s Gaza plan and erasure of agency

Donald Trump’s 20-point ‘Gaza peace plan’ is not a plan for peace so much as a playbook for managing Palestinians: talented technocrats, foreign billionaires and a Western-led ‘Board of Peace’ will rebuild Gaza but without Gaza’s consent. That is the plan’s most dangerous omission. Nowhere does it condemn Israel’s scorched-earth campaign, not even in the Recent Tweet of President Donald Trump. The plan speaks only of Hamas’s October 7th attack as the catalyst, as if Gaza’s decades of occupation, blockade and bombardment never happened. Indeed, Israel has drawn global condemnation for its conduct in Gaza, over 65,000 Palestinians killed and entire neighborhoods razed, yet Trump’s blueprint mentions none of this. Here are the plan’s glaring omissions and flaws.

No Palestinian agency or input: Gaza’s people are largely written out of this document. The plan envisions a foreign‐run committee and board of investors overseeing Gaza. As one expert bluntly observes, “no Palestinian leader I am aware of was consulted … you cannot have peace with Palestinians without Palestinians at the table”. The proposed Board of Peace to be chaired by Trump and include figures like Tony Blair would have only one Palestinian among 7-10 members.

Hamas is blamed alone: Every point frames Hamas as the sole villain. Gaza must become a “deradicalized terror-free zone”, tunnels and weapons are to be destroyed; Hamas officials can re-enter only if they “commit to peaceful coexistence.” In other words, the war’s end is conditioned on Hamas’s surrender. The proposal “involves the surrender of Hamas” or Israel will be “given a freer hand” to continue the assault. Yet Israeli leaders echoing Trump, make clear they will maintain troops on Gaza’s borders indefinitely. So while Hamas fighters must disarm and leave, Israeli military forces and intelligence will stay until Gaza is deemed permanently safe for Israel, a term left undefined. 

Zero accountability for Israeli war crimes: Curiously, the word “condemnation” does not appear anywhere in the plan. There is a long section on hostage exchanges and prisoner releases, but nothing on Gaza’s dead, demolished schools or water shortages. Trump’s plan does offer to rebuild Gaza’s water, power and roads but only after it is declared a peaceful zone. Rebuilding won’t mean much if the victims’ suffering is glossed over. In the plan’s telling, Gaza’s population are ex-Hamas by default: “New Gaza will be fully committed to building a prosperous economy”. But Palestinian leaders counter that Gazans know Trump’s proposal calls merely for the “continued expansion by the state of Israel into Palestinian land”, a word game that ends the war on Israel’s terms.

A foreign board, a foreign plan

At a White House press conference, Trump boasted that Gaza would be governed by “technocratic” Palestinians chosen not by Gazans but by a new international body. In practice, that means a board of Western capitalists and ex-leaders. The leaked draft even floated names like Egyptian and American billionaires and an ultra-Orthodox rabbi, as potential Gaza governors, a “few billionaires” to exercise “supreme political authority” over Gaza. 

In fact, only one Palestinian technocrat is permitted on the board if “qualified” and Gaza’s elected leaders get no seat. This isn’t conjecture: the draft shows the PA’s Executive Authority placed at the very bottom of a flow-chart, with a Gazan CEO to be appointed by foreigners. It’s the modern equivalent of a colonial mandate.

READ: Retired Israeli general: Israel has reached a point of no return in Gaza war

Tony Blair’s legacy and colonial echoes

Even for a seasoned observer, the sight of Tony Blair leading Gaza is jarring. Its British architect, Tony Blair, is better known for “transforming” Iraq into chaos, yet he’s now “mooted to lead” Gaza’s board. Critics were scathing: Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis called it “precious comedy” that “war criminals are proposing a war criminal as head of… Gaza”. Historian William Dalrymple quipped: “Given Blair’s superb record in the Middle East, what could possibly go wrong?” The answer lies in history. 

Western powers have long tried “benign” interventions in Palestine, Sykes-Picot, the British Mandate, Oslo’s outsider-led donor conferences and in each case Palestinians had little say. In Gaza today, this pattern repeats: Israel occupies and bombs, then an external “peace plan” swoops in without addressing the root injustice. 

Edward Said’s words from Gaza’s ruins ring true: “there always is a chorus of intellectuals to say calming words about benign or altruistic empires, as if one shouldn’t trust the evidence of one’s eyes watching the destruction and the misery and death brought by the latest mission civilisatrice”. Trump’s 20 points play that music, the latest “mission civilisatrice” while Gaza’s victims are left to lament, “when is tomorrow? What is freedom?”

Lessons from history

It is no accident that Palestinians reject a plan cooked up overseas. Experience shows that imposed settlements fail. Consider Lebanon’s civil war: decades of outside meddling only prolonged the fighting until Lebanese factions themselves negotiated power-sharing (the Ta’if Accord). Or recall post-World War II Europe: the Marshall Plan rebuilt infrastructure, but local Germans and French remained in charge of their countries’ governments. Gaza, by contrast, is slated to be rebuilt for Gazans but without Gazans. This is reminiscent of colonial mandates, not cooperative peace.

Even the plan’s vague nod to a future Palestinian state is undercut by disclaimers. International leaders around the world are re-affirming the two-state solution, with dozens of countries now recognizing Palestine as a state. 

The US and Israel, however, remain steadfastly opposed. Here, Trump’s 20th point merely “recognizes” Palestinians’ aspiration for statehood “when conditions may be in place,” a distant promise if Gaza ever rebuilds and Ramallah ever reforms. If that sounds like giving statehood “a few years” after October 7th, Israeli leader Netanyahu has already declared any such state “insane”. In other words, the plan offers nothing new: Gaza is to be pacified and rebuilt, but ultimate sovereignty is deferred indefinitely.

Toward a real peace

If Trump’s blueprint is a 20-point non-starter, what might a genuine peace plan look like? A fair plan would begin with truth and accountability: Israel’s military campaign and blockade must be acknowledged, and all sides’ crimes addressed, not just Hamas’s. It would demilitarise Gaza mutually: Palestinian militants would stand down and Israeli occupation forces would pull back fully to agreed borders. It would include Gazan voices at every step: an interim government of respected local figures (from across the political spectrum, not just foreign-approved technocrats), working alongside UN or Arab mediators. 

It would trust Gazans with their own reconstruction, offering aid through local NGOs and Palestinian institutions rather than shipping in only “business projects.” In short, peace can only begin when Palestinians have a genuine seat at the table, not token gestures under an outsider’s yoke. Only then could one genuinely speak of lasting security for both Israelis and Palestinians. But with Trump’s 20 points, we see a different story: one side’s suffering is barely a footnote while the other writes the ending. If peace requires both truth and agency, can we call a deal ‘peace’ when one people are reduced to objects of management?

OPINION: Welcoming Israel to the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships in Jakarta betrays Indonesia’s stand for Palestine

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