Donald Trump’s latest framework for ending the Gaza war has moved quickly onto the world stage, gathering support from regional powers and, in principle, from Israel. Yet its very strength—momentum—may also be its greatest weakness, for the plan offers little detail about how it would actually unfold.
Trump has given Hamas only a few days to respond. A refusal, he insists, would mean a continuation of the conflict. For the first time, he has also applied visible pressure on Israel to halt military operations, a move that sets him apart from past approaches. Arab and Islamic states, including heavyweights such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar, have voiced approval, while Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly endorsed the proposal alongside Trump in Washington.
Beneath the surface, however, contradictions abound. The framework nods—vaguely—toward the idea of a Palestinian state, suggesting that reforms within the Palestinian Authority could eventually open a path to self-determination. That faint recognition is enough to alarm Netanyahu’s far-right allies, who immediately branded the plan “dangerous” and “full of holes.” At home, Netanyahu himself downplayed the statehood angle, declaring in Hebrew that Israel would never permit a sovereign Palestine, even as he praised Trump’s initiative in English.
This dual messaging reveals the fragile political ground the plan rests on. For Netanyahu, the framework offers both an opportunity and a shield: he can accept Trump’s proposal internationally while still reassuring his coalition at home that nothing fundamental will change. The flexibility within the plan’s language provides Israel ample space to stall or reshape negotiations if needed.
Opposition parties in Israel have cautiously welcomed the plan, but the far right has rejected it outright, preferring earlier visions that included removing Gaza’s population entirely. Meanwhile, Arab nations backing the deal highlight their expectation of a full Israeli withdrawal and reconstruction of Gaza, framing it as a step toward the long-sought two-state solution.
In truth, the document is more stage-setting than blueprint. It sketches a phased pullback of Israeli forces but lacks the technical precision to guarantee results. As with many diplomatic frameworks, it risks collapse in the grind of negotiations.
For now, Trump has injected urgency into a stagnant conflict. Yet urgency without detail rarely holds—and both Israelis and Palestinians may find their starkly different interpretations of the plan pulling it apart before it even begins.
Africa Digital News, New York
