Trump reverses the situation for Israel with his all-or-nothing Gaza plan.
US President Donald Trump has flipped the script by offering Hamas an ultimatum in the form of a Gaza plan, giving Israel the diplomatic upper hand and even more authority on the ground in the event that a deal falls through.
Under Trump’s leadership, the White House unveiled a 20-point plan on Monday that would liberate captives, terminate Israel’s nearly two-year-long operation in Gaza, and establish a special economic zone.
Trump said on Tuesday that Hamas will “pay in hell” if it did not accept the deal within days, echoing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s warning to the group whose historic October 7, 2023 attack sparked the conflict.
The plan has components for success, according to Aaron David Miller, a seasoned advisor to US secretary of state on Middle East diplomacy, but it needed much more detail, which Trump might not be willing to provide.
“Donald Trump has strategic instincts, but he doesn’t have a strategy for how to get from point A to point B,” Miller, a senior scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, stated.
He is a transactionalist and a situationalist. He doesn’t consider these things. “Anchorage is a classic example,” he remarked, alluding to Trump’s meeting with President Vladimir Putin in Alaska one month prior, which concluded with a hazy discussion of Ukraine’s development and, similar to Monday, no press questions.
“EVEN CHECK BLANKER”
Outrage over Israel’s military campaign has grown. Israel has denied the UN’s accusations that it is committing genocide and that hunger has been declared in a portion of the Gaza Strip.
France, Britain, and a number of other Western nations last week acknowledged a Palestinian state, expressing their frustration with Netanyahu.
Trump reached out to major Arab and Muslim nations and offered a 21-point proposal at the UN last week in an attempt to corner Hamas.
Important Arab and Muslim-majority nations, such as regional superpowers Saudi Arabia and Turkey and peacemakers Qatar and Egypt, applauded Trump’s efforts but notably did not expressly support the published plan, which was down to 20 points.
The plan, which was revised by Netanyahu and Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, no longer explicitly excludes Israeli annexation of the West Bank, a position supported by Netanyahu’s far-right supporters.
Netanyahu has long criticized the plan, which is ambiguous on Palestinian independence and refers to a future “credible pathway.”
Trump’s idea is essentially a “fig leaf” to undermine a two-state solution that is widely accepted, according to Brian Katulis, a senior scholar at the Middle East Institute who worked on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict under former President Bill Clinton.
“There isn’t much of a deal. “It is merely supporting Israel’s efforts to obtain unconditional surrender,” he stated.
It indicates that if Hamas rejects this agreement, Trump is prepared to give Israel an even bigger check.
Trump’s ability to “clean the mess that Israel created” by having Netanyahu apologize to Qatar for an attack on Hamas leaders who were scheduled to discuss a ceasefire plan, he added, was the primary accomplishment.
AWFUL PERFORMANCE FOR GRAND BARGAINS
Trump, who is rarely characterized as meticulous, is the most unexpected world leader to offer a thorough Middle East strategy.
At the Camp David conference at the end of his presidency, former US President Bill Clinton outlined a much more detailed agreement to resolve the conflict.
Some Palestinians questioned whether an all-or-nothing strategy was ever going to work on such complex challenges, but that summit collapsed, with Israel and Clinton accusing the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat of not making concessions.
“The historical record isn’t promising on a grand bargain,” stated Dana Stroul, a senior scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former top Pentagon official.
“Even going from 21 to 20 points, that’s a lot to be implemented and a lot of opportunities for spoilers,” she stated.
However, she claimed that more grave circumstances and “buy-in from the region” made this time different.
“The humanitarian situation is worse, the choices for the Israeli military and government are worse, Israel’s international isolation is worse, and there are fewer living Hamas leaders available to make decisions,” she stated.
“So I think there are important reasons why we needed an updated framework.”