Trump's Gaza Peace Plan: Analyzing Prospects for Ending the Israel-Hamas Conflict

Israel and Hamas appear to be showing positive responses to Trump's peace proposal, though both parties face complex political calculations.

President Donald Trump has called for Israel to cease its bombardment of Gaza after Hamas agreed to release hostages and accepted key elements of a US peace plan—potentially signaling the end of a two-year conflict.

Israel has announced it will work toward "immediate implementation" of the plan's first phase, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu approved during his Washington visit.

However, significant challenges remain—the implementation timeline is not precisely defined, logistical issues may arise due to Gaza's extensive damage, and critical matters including Hamas' disarmament and Israel's withdrawal terms remain unresolved.

Previous ceasefires during this conflict have collapsed with Israel resuming offensive operations and fighting restarting.

The situation appears to be calming already, despite occasional Israeli strikes. Following Trump's demand to halt bombing, Gaza residents initially reported heavy bombardments on Gaza City, the focus of intense Israeli operations. Since then, residents report that airstrikes have significantly decreased, with extended periods of relative quiet interrupted by only occasional explosions.

This development could potentially signal the war's conclusion. Trump has expressed determination to end the conflict through his 20-point proposal, stating: "This is not about Gaza alone; this is about long-sought PEACE in the Middle East."

However, this agreement follows previous ceasefire attempts—one shortly after hostilities began in 2023 and another earlier this year—both of which lasted only weeks before fighting resumed.

Numerous obstacles remain in the current situation. Hamas' response left several critical issues unaddressed, including their position on disarmament—a central demand in Trump's plan and one of Israel's primary war objectives.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu endorsed the plan despite it offering a conditional pathway to a future Palestinian state, something the Israeli prime minister has explicitly stated he would never permit.

Additional potential complications include the timing and boundaries for Israeli withdrawal and future governance arrangements for Gaza.

Oren Setter, senior fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center and former head of the Israel Defence Forces strategic planning division, acknowledged Trump's achievement in engaging all parties with the plan, adding, "But it's the beginning of the process. It's not the end of the process."

Trump's plan lacks a clearly defined timeline. It stated that hostilities would cease immediately once both sides agreed to the proposal. However, Hamas' response did not approve all 20 points, indicating it would "engage through mediators in negotiations to discuss the details of this process."

The plan stipulated all hostages, both living and deceased, would be released within 72 hours of Israel publicly accepting the agreement, but the exact starting point for this deadline remains unclear, considering Netanyahu agreed to the timeline several days before Hamas responded.

Logistical challenges may also arise. Sources close to Hamas suggest that while releasing living hostages could be relatively straightforward, recovering bodies of deceased hostages from Gaza's rubble may require more than just a few days.

Israel reports that 48 hostages remain in Gaza out of the 251 captured during Hamas' October 2023 attack, with 20 believed to be alive.

Both Israel and Hamas appear intent on demonstrating positive responses to Trump while navigating their own political considerations.

For Netanyahu, accepting the plan may represent a calculation to maintain good relations with Trump and the United States, Israel's crucial ally, while making minimal concessions to avoid alienating his religious nationalist coalition partners, who have strongly opposed any Palestinian deal and advocated continuing the war.

Hamas' response, agreeing to release hostages while leaving several issues unresolved, may have strategically shifted focus to other participants, including Arab mediators like Qatar and Egypt, or other Arab and Islamic nations pressuring the US president to end the conflict, according to International Crisis Group analyst Amjad Iraqi.

"Hamas has actually made rather a smart move by saying 'yes and' or 'yes but'. In that kind of approach, they basically helped to kind of throw the ball back into the courts of Netanyahu, but also the Arab states," he observed.

Hamas addressed or sidestepped key aspects of Trump's plan in the following ways:

* Regarding hostage release: Hamas agreed to release Israeli hostages in Gaza, both living and deceased, according to the plan's exchange formula, but referenced "necessary field conditions for implementing the exchange" without specifying these conditions.

* On Israeli withdrawal: Hamas accepted the framework to end hostilities and mentioned Israel's "full withdrawal" from Gaza, while Trump's plan referred to Israeli forces withdrawing "to the agreed upon line to prepare for a hostage release" and a "staged withdrawal."

* Concerning future governance: Hamas, which has governed Gaza since 2007, stated it would transfer Gaza's administration to a Palestinian technocratic authority with Palestinian, Arab and Islamic support, whereas Trump's plan proposed a Palestinian technocratic administration supervised by a new international transitional body led by Trump and including figures such as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

* On Hamas' future: Hamas positioned itself as part of a "comprehensive Palestinian national framework" without addressing demilitarization—a measure it has previously rejected. Trump's plan specified Hamas would have no role in Gaza's governance and outlined a process for Gaza's demilitarization.