The plan’s true significance may lie in its long-term geopolitical consequences. If successful, it could lead to normalisation between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
President Donald Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan has dramatically shifted from a diplomatic proposal to a fragile, high-stakes reality. Following Hamas’s conditional acceptance on October 3 to release all hostages and cede governance, Trump ordered an immediate halt to Israel’s bombing campaign. However, with bombings continuing and causing dozens of casualties, the nearly two-year war, which has claimed over 67,000 Palestinian and nearly 1200 Israeli lives, has entered a tense, decisive negotiation phase.
On the second anniversary of the October 7 attack, all eyes are on Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, where crucial indirect talks are underway. Trump has sent his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and envoy Steve Witkoff to lead the U.S. effort, with delegations led by Israel’s Ron Dermer and Hamas’s Khalil al-Hayya—who made his first public appearance since surviving an Israeli assassination attempt in Qatar—discussing the plan’s ambiguous, contentious details, facilitated by Egyptian and Qatari mediators. Nudged by Trump to “move fast,” the discussions have focused on the initial phase of the peace plan, emphasising technical issues such as structuring prisoner and hostage exchanges, ceasing hostilities, and arranging security guarantees. As of now, the talks have not yielded an agreement on a large-scale hostage or prisoner exchange, and no timeline for a ceasefire has been announced, fuelling speculation that the negotiations may be prolonged.
The core of the 20-point plan, built on three pillars of security, governance, and restructuring, remains a rapid, sequenced framework calling for a hostage-prisoner exchange, complete disarmament of Hamas, and a technocratic committee overseen by a Trump-chaired “Board of Peace” until a reformed Palestinian Authority (PA) assumes control. Hamas’s acceptance, while significant, is far from unconditional. The group insists on negotiating key aspects, seeking international guarantees for a full Israeli withdrawal and amendments to its disarmament terms, with reports suggesting divisions between its political and military wings. Adding to the complexity, Egypt is set to host a broader conference of Palestinian factions to discuss Gaza’s future, where Hamas has expressed a desire to participate in shaping governance—a direct contradiction of the plan’s fundamental principle of excluding it entirely.
Trump’s positive reading of Hamas’s response has sparked controversy within Israeli circles, with senior officials calling the conditional acceptance “essentially a rejection.” Yet Trump’s optimistic claim that Hamas was “ready for lasting peace” caught Prime Minister Netanyahu off guard, forcing Israel into a reactive posture. The proposal has placed the Israeli government in a precarious position. While Netanyahu’s office announced preparations to implement the plan’s first stage, his rhetoric hardened, warning that Hamas’s disarmament would happen “either the easy way or the hard way,” and asserting Israel’s military will maintain control over the Gaza territories. Coupled with his repeated rejection of a Palestinian state, this stance challenges the plan’s text and seems designed to appease his far-right coalition partners, who condemn the deal as a diplomatic failure. These deep internal fractures make it politically perilous for the government to implement the plan’s core tenets, even as thousands of protesters in Tel Aviv urge securing a ceasefire, calling the opportunity “now or never”.
Despite these hurdles, the conditional agreement could unlock transformative short-term benefits if the Sharm el-Sheikh talks succeed. An end to hostilities would provide immediate relief to a population suffering catastrophic losses, while the return of hostages and prisoners would resolve deeply traumatic issues. The reopening of the Rafah crossing enables a massive influx of aid to rebuild infrastructure. A U.S.-led International Stabilisation Force (ISF) is slated to provide internal security, assist in demilitarisation, and coordinate with local and regional authorities, enabling reconstruction. While eight Arab and Muslim nations issued a joint statement welcoming Trump’s vision, they crucially avoided specific military commitments to the ISF, reflecting sensitivities about perceived military interference in Palestinian territory.
The plan’s true significance may lie in its long-term geopolitical consequences. It is a strategic extension of the Abraham Accords, designed to manage the Palestinian conflict and remove it as the main obstacle to a full-scale regional alliance between Israel and the Gulf states. If successful, it could pave the way for normalisation between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Conversely, a collapse would reinforce narratives that normalisation comes at the expense of Palestinian rights. For Palestinians, the vaguely defined ‘pathway to statehood’ is unlikely to lead to a sovereign nation. This promise is conditional on PA reforms and lacks an enforceable timeline, which critics view as an indefinite postponement. Furthermore, the pledge of Israeli withdrawal is limited, allowing for an indefinite “security perimeter presence” while omitting the core issue of settlements. The more probable outcome is a prolonged transitional phase in which Gaza is governed by an international body, effectively deferring the final status question.
Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan has shifted from a risky gamble to a delicate, ongoing negotiation. The Sharm el-Sheikh talks serve as the test where its bold vision will either yield a workable ceasefire or collapse under its contradictions. While there is real potential to stop the violence, lasting success depends on bridging deep ideological divides between Hamas’s political ambitions and Israel’s insistence on full security control. The plan’s ultimate legacy hinges not on its text but on whether its architects can manage these irreconcilable demands.
For India, whose West Asian interests focus on diaspora security, energy flows, and connectivity projects, the plan presents a strategic dilemma. Its success would reduce regional risks and create the stable environment needed to activate the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). However, Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy on Iran, including revocation of sanctions waivers for the Chabahar port, jeopardises India’s investments in this alternative Central Asian gateway. The plan effectively places India’s two flagship connectivity projects on opposite sides of a deepening geopolitical divide, forcing a difficult strategic choice.
The article was originally published in Hindustan Times on October 06, 2025, 09:27 pm IST and in the print editions on October 07, 2025.
