• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Trump's New Israel-Hamas Peace Deal

Hope, Illusion, or Realignment?

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

When Donald Trump announced that his mediation had helped produce a new peace deal between Israel and Hamas, the news reverberated through a region weary of bloodshed and suspicion. The plan, now being called the Gaza Peace Plan or Trump's 20-point framework, promises to halt hostilities, return hostages, and begin the reconstruction of Gaza under new administrative arrangements. Yet, as with previous Middle Eastern peace initiatives, the deeper question remains: what does this mean for the Palestinian people—not just in Gaza, but across their fragmented national landscape?

The Architecture of the Deal

According to various reports from Reuters, Euronews, CNBC, and Al Jazeera, the Trump-brokered deal is structured around a few core principles:

• Immediate ceasefire: All fighting in Gaza is to stop under international monitoring.
• Hostage exchange: Hamas agrees to release all Israeli hostages (both living and deceased) in return for a substantial release of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.
• Partial Israeli withdrawal: The Israeli Defense Forces are to retreat to an “agreed line” once hostages are freed.
• Interim governance: Gaza will be temporarily administered by a technocratic, non-partisan Palestinian committee, supported by international oversight. Hamas, though not officially dissolved, is to relinquish direct control.
• Disarmament of militant groups: Hamas and other armed factions are to surrender their weapons and tunnels, possibly in exchange for amnesty.
• Reconstruction and relief: Massive humanitarian assistance and rebuilding projects will be launched to repair Gaza's devastated infrastructure.

These elements are intended to create a phased pathway from war to stability—from the rubble of conflict toward a managed peace.

The Promise of Immediate Relief

At first glance, the plan seems to address the most urgent humanitarian imperatives.

For Gazans, who have endured catastrophic destruction and displacement, even a temporary ceasefire would mean a reprieve from bombardment and starvation. The release of prisoners on both sides—Israeli hostages and Palestinian detainees—carries strong symbolic and emotional resonance, signaling a mutual willingness to de-escalate.

If implemented sincerely, the reconstruction plan could rebuild homes, hospitals, and schools, opening Gaza to international aid on a scale not seen since the Oslo years. The proposed technocratic administration might bring competence and neutrality to governance—a respite from both the corruption of the Palestinian Authority and the authoritarianism of Hamas.

In this sense, the plan's humanitarian dimension is its strongest selling point. It offers tangible relief in a place that has suffered so much abstract diplomacy.

The Shadow of Exclusion

Yet the deal's humanitarian veneer conceals deep political ambiguities. For one, the Palestinian people were not meaningfully at the table. Hamas negotiated out of necessity, not strength. The Palestinian Authority (PA), headquartered in Ramallah, was largely bypassed. The broader Palestinian diaspora—whose concerns about the right of return, borders, and Jerusalem remain unresolved—had no voice at all.

This echoes a familiar pattern: peace about Palestinians, not with them. The deal focuses almost entirely on Gaza, effectively decoupling it from the West Bank and thus reinforcing the geographic and political fragmentation of the Palestinian nation. If Gaza becomes a separate, internationally managed enclave, Israel can more easily maintain control over the rest of the occupied territories without appearing to reject peace.

In that sense, the Trump plan may entrench separation rather than heal division.

The Disarmament Dilemma

Another central pillar—the disarmament of Hamas—sounds logical to Western ears but is politically explosive in Palestinian terms. Disarmament means relinquishing what Hamas considers its only leverage against Israel. The group's leaders may calculate that temporary compliance could preserve their survival, but their legitimacy within Palestinian society is rooted in resistance. To lay down arms is, for many of their followers, to surrender the very symbol of dignity and defiance.

If enforced too aggressively, disarmament could provoke intra-Palestinian conflict, pitting factions against each other and undermining the fragile technocratic administration the plan envisions. Even if disarmament were achieved, Israel's continuing control over airspace, borders, and trade could make Gaza's “peace” resemble a supervised containment rather than genuine autonomy.

Technocrats Without a Mandate

The proposal to install a “technocratic authority” in Gaza has its own contradictions. While such an arrangement might avoid partisan paralysis, it also risks being seen as a foreign imposition—a management solution to a moral and political problem. Palestinians have repeatedly demanded not just better governance but self-determination. A non-elected committee, even if efficient, could lack the legitimacy needed to unify Gaza's fractured society.

If this temporary administration is perceived as a proxy of the U.S. or Israel, it will almost certainly fail to gain local trust. Without legitimacy, reconstruction could stall, corruption could return, and militants could regroup under new names.

The Illusion of “Peace Without Politics”

The most telling feature of the Trump peace deal is its avoidance of final-status issues—borders, refugees, the occupation of the West Bank, and the status of Jerusalem. By focusing narrowly on Gaza's reconstruction and disarmament, the plan implies that peace can be achieved through management rather than resolution.

This reflects a broader trend since the Abraham Accords: the shift from a regional consensus on Palestinian rights to a pragmatic acceptance of Israel's dominance. For Israel and its Arab partners, normalization is a way to sidestep the Palestinian issue. For Palestinians, it signals the end of the two-state illusion—peace deals that leave the occupation intact while declaring the conflict “over.”

Thus, while the Trump initiative might end a war, it does not end the conditions that produce war.

Potential Benefits Amid the Risks

Still, the deal's defenders argue that any cessation of violence is preferable to the endless cycle of revenge. The humanitarian window it opens could, at least temporarily, save lives and ease suffering. Moreover, a technocratic transitional authority could create new political space, perhaps even re-unify Palestinian factions under fresh leadership less compromised by corruption or militancy.

If international oversight works—a big if—the reconstruction of Gaza could demonstrate that peace, however imposed, delivers tangible benefits. That in itself could shift public sentiment away from the politics of resistance toward those of recovery.

Yet, for now, this remains a hopeful conjecture. History suggests that without justice, reconstruction only restores the ruins for the next round of violence.

The Palestinian Dilemma: Relief or Recognition?

For Palestinians, every peace initiative poses the same dilemma: should they accept partial gains (a ceasefire, reconstruction, limited self-rule) or hold out for full sovereignty and justice? The Trump plan, like many before it, offers relief without recognition. It may stop the bombs but not the blockade; it may rebuild Gaza's streets but not its freedom.

In the end, its success depends not on Trump's bravado or Israel's calculations, but on whether it restores something more fundamental—Palestinian agency. Without that, even the most elaborate peace plan will remain a scaffolding over unresolved injustice.

Conclusion: The Long Shadow of “Peace”

The new Israel-Hamas deal may mark a pause in one chapter of the Middle East conflict, but it does not yet mark its end. Its humanitarian aspirations are real and urgently needed; its political underpinnings are fragile and deeply asymmetrical. For Israel, the deal offers security and normalization. For the United States, it represents diplomatic triumph. But for the Palestinians, it is at best a breathing space, and at worst, another chapter in the long history of being managed rather than liberated.

Peace without justice is not peace, only quiet. And quiet, in Gaza, has never lasted long.