Follow us on social

Netanyahu Trump White House

Trump offers Gaza plan that will please no one but Trump

The White House again gives Netanyahu the red carpet treatment, abandoning real leverage for optics

Analysis | QiOSK

During his joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, President Donald Trump announced a new plan that he said is “getting everything solved in the Middle East.”

Unfortunately, the plan appears designed to once again portray Palestinians as opposing an end to the violence, as Americans involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict have done for decades.

If Trump wanted Hamas to agree to the deal, he would have sent it to them before presenting it as a fait accompli. Yet as of Saturday, Hamas leaders said they had not received the proposal. Yet Trump proceeded with announcing the plan publicly anyway. During the press conference, he said that if Hamas rejects the deal, “as you know, Bibi, you have our full backing to do what you would."

The plan includes the following points:

  • A permanent ceasefire in Gaza
  • The release of all Israeli hostages and many Palestinian hostages, including all women and children detained since October 7
  • Gradual Israeli withdrawal from most of the Gaza Strip, although a security perimeter would remain, further shrinking the already tiny enclave
  • Hamas members that agree to give up their weapons would be given amnesty and permitted to leave Gaza for receiving countries
  • Gaza would be governed by a temporary mechanism that includes both Trump and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair
  • Palestinians would not be forced to leave, and anyone who leaves would have the right of return

In point #19, the plan provides a provisional mention of Palestinian self-determination, stating, “while Gaza redevelopment advances and when the PA reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.” Essentially, Palestinians are asked to accept foreign occupation and full disarmament, with no guarantee that Israel’s campaign of indiscriminate bombing will not resume, nor that their right to self-determination will be respected.

On Friday, Trump sounded optimistic, declaring that “[i]t's looking like we have a deal,” after a meeting with nine Arab and Muslim-majority countries on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly resulted in support for the plan. The Arab states insisted on several points, including that “full aid will be sent immediately into the Gaza Strip,” to be distributed by the U.N. and the Red Crescent, rather than the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which has been involved in the deaths of more than 2500 Palestinians since beginning operations in May.

The Arab states also demanded the plan state that Israel would not annex Gaza or the West Bank, but the 20-point plan makes no mention of the West Bank. While buy-in from regional states is important, even more important is buy-in from Palestinians, who were not present at the meeting.

Trump’s Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner drafted the plan, discussions of which have included a proposal to have Blair oversee the Gaza International Transitional Authority. Critics have described the former British prime minister as seeking to become a colonial viceroy: when asked about the possibility of Blair serving as the interim political leader in Gaza, Husam Badran, a member of Hamas’ political bureau, told Al-Jazeera, “The Palestinian people have the right to self-determination, as recognized by international law. We are not minors needing guardianship…[Blair’s] bloody record, especially his role in the Iraq War, is infamous. He has brought nothing good to Palestine, the Arabs, or the Muslims.”

While many supporters of Palestinian self-determination decry the Witkoff-Kushner plan as intended to yet again sideline Palestinian demands for a viable state, many inside Gaza are desperate for an end to the violence. The Israeli military continues to force its way into Gaza City, leveling residential buildings and killing countless innocent civilians who were unable to flee. Although Israel has allowed limited food to enter Gaza, it continues to block crucial supplies, including high protein peanut butter paste desperately needed to save starving children, as U.N. Relief Chief Tom Fletcher told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on the sidelines of UNGA High Level Week.

Netanyahu’s willingness to agree to even a nominal ceasefire plan generated speculation about whether Trump was finally pressuring him to accept, as he did to secure the January ceasefire. According to a recent poll, a majority of Israelis want the war to end in order to finally achieve the release of the Israeli hostages. Israel’s own security establishment has concluded that there is no military solution in Gaza, and last month, Israel’s Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, opposed the security cabinet’s demand that the IDF fully occupy Gaza, and questioned the plan to take control of Gaza City.

Yet Netanyahu’s far-right coalition partners oppose any ceasefire plan, maintaining that Israel must achieve “total victory” over Hamas. An Israeli newspaper reported that Netanyahu’s “challenge is to convince ministers that this [plan] is nothing more than rhetoric.” Similar to when he agreed to the January ceasefire, Netanyahu has no intention of ending Israel’s war on Gaza.

Americans’ support for Israel has plummeted in the past two years, with a majority now opposed to sending additional economic and military aid to Israel, according to a newly released Times/Siena poll.

Trump is aware that his party’s unconditional support for Israel is splintering his base. By announcing this plan in a manner that appears largely intended to portray Israel as ready for peace and Hamas as obstructing the deal, he seems determined to reinforce the long-standing Israeli/American narrative that there is “no partner for peace” on the Palestinian side, meaning that Israel must reluctantly continue fighting. When in fact, Hamas has offered multiple deals to end the war which Israel has rejected. With the recent sale of TikTok to pro-Israel billionaire Larry Ellison, Trump seems to think he can wrestle back control of the narrative.


Top photo credit: Members of the media raise their hands as U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shake hands at a joint press conference in the State Dining Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 29, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
Analysis | QiOSK
Benjamin Netanyahu
Top image credit: Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, also seen on a television monitor, addresses the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York October 1, 2013. (Reuters/Adrees Latif)

Israel is the main source of instability in the Middle East

Middle East

Is conflict in the Middle East at an inflection point? It might seem so, given how international outrage over Israel’s lethal conduct in the Gaza Strip has become increasingly intense and widespread in recent weeks.

Several major Western countries that previously had declined to join most other members of the United Nations in formally recognizing a Palestinian state used the opening of the current session of the General Assembly as the occasion to take that step. Popular demonstrations in the West in support of the Palestinians have been as large and conspicuous as ever, and recent polls show a sharp decline in the American public’s support for Israel.

keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top image credit: Handout - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy meets with U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, on Tuesday, September 23, 2025. Photo via Ukrainian Presidential Press Office/ABACAPRESS.COM via REUTERS

Trump's latest line on Ukraine isn't a 'shift,' it's a hand-off

Europe

U.S. President Donald Trump’s rhetorical shift on Ukraine isn’t a call to arms. But it’s a dangerous attempt to outsource escalation to Europe. And it’s a strategy that could easily reverse again.

Trump’s recent social media pronouncement on Ukraine, following his meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky, appears to be a stunning about-face. Just days ago, the core of his “peace plans” was the grim realpolitik of forcing Kyiv to accept territorial losses. Now, he declares Russia a “paper tiger” and seems to endorse fighting to Ukraine’s “final victory”, including “winning back” all the territories it lost to Russia since 2014.

But a closer look reveals this isn’t a genuine shift toward a hawkish policy. Instead, it’s the unveiling of a profoundly dangerous strategy. To understand it, we must see it as the outcome of a successful influence campaign by Kyiv, its European partners and their allies within the U.S. administration, who, after Trump's meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, faced a clear set of objectives.

Their minimum task was to prevent Trump from applying intense pressure on Zelensky to accept Putin’s terms for a peace settlement, most notably Russia’s territorial gains in Donbas and Ukraine’s permanent neutrality (i.e. no NATO membership). More ambitiously, they sought to convince Trump to return to a Biden-era policy of direct aid. And their maximum, albeit distant, task was to gain approval for high-risk actions like a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

Faced with these pressures, Trump had three broad options: pressure Zelensky (facing major resistance from Ukraine, Europe and powerful forces within the U.S.), pressure Putin (with limited leverage and high escalation risks), or essentially “wash his hands” of direct responsibility.

The latest events show that Kyiv and Europe have achieved their minimum goal. Trump is not pressuring Zelensky to accept Putin’s terms. Moreover, he has effectively taken the issue of a rapid ceasefire off the table, a major win for leaders who fear a negotiated compromise. They now have a “green light” from the American president himself to continue fighting.

However, this shift is almost entirely rhetorical. While the tone has swung from advocating a deal to cheering for victory, the underlying substantive policy — American disengagement — has remained remarkably consistent. Before, he argued that Ukraine should cede land because the U.S. should not be involved. Now, he argues Ukraine can win back its land because the U.S. should not be involved, except as a merchant. The core “America First” principle of avoiding costly entanglements is unchanged; only the public justification for it has flipped to accommodate political pressures.

This disengagement is articulated not just by Trump’s transactional arms-sales approach, but by his key officials. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently laid bare the doctrine’s stark logic, dismissing fears of Russian expansion by stating, “All I hear from you is that Putin wants to march into Warsaw. The one thing I'm sure of is that Putin isn't marching into Boston.”

This statement is a clear signal that the administration’s fundamental priority is insulating the American homeland, not defending the NATO frontier, much less a non-NATO country like Ukraine. This “re-orientation” was likely influenced by a combination of factors, including Trump’s genuine frustration with Putin’s refusal to accept a ceasefire without a broader political settlement, incidents with Russian drones and aircraft violating NATO’s airspace, and a concerted flow of information suggesting Ukrainian strength and Russian weakness.

Yet, this apparent victory for Ukraine and its allies comes with a massive catch. Trump has not chosen deeper U.S. involvement. Instead, he has chosen his third option: to “wash his hands.” While his rhetoric is bellicose, his policy is transactional. The U.S., he suggests, will be a weapons wholesaler to Europe, not a direct funder. For Kyiv, this is far from ideal, as it must now rely primarily on European aid, which may be insufficient.

Critically, we must remember Trump’s penchant for abrupt reversals. Not long ago, he claimed Zelensky had “no cards” and that Ukraine would lose to Russia, a more powerful nation. Then he threatened Putin with sanctions, only to later drop those ultimatums, meet with him, and hailed a breakthrough. Now, Russia is a “paper tiger.”

keep readingShow less
US pressure risks plunging Lebanon into violence
Top photo credit: Tyre city, Southern Lebanon, 8-23-2017: Lebanese army soldiers performing the military salute ceremony (Shutterstock/crop media)

US pressure risks plunging Lebanon into violence

Middle East

Recent remarks about the necessity of disarming Hezbollah by U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack have stunned Lebanese leaders, who are concerned that any forcible attempt to carry out Washington’s wishes risks plunging the country into renewed sectarian violence and possibly even civil war.

“We don’t want to arm [the Lebanese Armed Forces] so they can fight Israel? I don’t think so,” Barrack, who also serves as Special Envoy to Syria, said in a recent media interview. “So you’re arming them so they can fight their own people, Hezbollah. Hezbollah is our enemy. Iran is our enemy.”

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.