Trump’s Gaza plan: architecture of peace and pitfalls of war Expert opinions on Caliber.Az

The UN Security Council has adopted a resolution supporting U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace plan for the Gaza Strip.

The document calls for the creation of an international stabilisation force in the Gaza Strip and for disarming Hamas. It also envisions establishing a transitional Palestinian administration — a clause added at the insistence of Arab states.

Of the 15 members of the UN Security Council, 13 — including the UK and France — voted in favour of the resolution. The plan is supported by Türkiye, Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Pakistan, and Indonesia. Russia and China abstained but chose not to use their veto power.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the UN decision, saying it paves the way for crucial steps toward regional stability. He stressed that Israel supports the move and thanked the U.S. and all other countries that joined the initiative.

Hamas, in turn, rejected the resolution shortly after its adoption, claiming that it disregards the rights and demands of the Palestinian people.

“The resolution imposes an international guardianship mechanism on the Gaza Strip, which our people and their factions reject,” the group said in a statement.

This raises the question of how the plan will be implemented — particularly the disarmament of Hamas — if the movement refuses to accept it. And what exactly is behind the Israeli prime minister’s optimism? Caliber.Az asked American and Israeli political analysts to evaluate the potential of the Trump plan resolution.

American analyst and geopolitical security expert Irina Tsukerman, editor-in-chief of The Washington Outsider, noted that the plan approved by the UN Security Council — presented as a diplomatic initiative of the Trump administration — reflects Washington’s attempt to give the Middle East file a more predictable and manageable trajectory. According to her, the document contains a number of positive elements.

“The U.S. president’s approach is built on the need to combine strategic pressure, economic incentives, and new regional guarantees aimed at keeping the situation under control. The plan’s strengths lie above all in its effort to create a diplomatic architecture that doesn’t focus on an immediate ceasefire, but instead on gradually reshaping the conditions that would prevent a return to the previous cycle of violence. It also recognises the role of regional actors, strengthens the responsibility of local governing structures, and establishes a framework for the controlled reconstruction of the Gaza Strip.

Another appealing aspect of the plan is its emphasis on international legitimacy. UN approval gave it an important political asset, allowing the Trump administration to present it not as a unilateral U.S. initiative but as a formally endorsed international framework. This gives Washington additional leverage over groups that traditionally reject American proposals. The U.S. hopes that the resolution creates a set of boundaries within which regional players, Palestinian factions, and Israel must operate — reducing the risk of a complete breakdown of the negotiation process,” the analyst said.

Tsukerman also highlighted the plan’s economic dimension as a major advantage. It aims to ensure that Gaza’s reconstruction unfolds in a controlled, coordinated way under an international oversight mechanism — reducing the risk that financial aid could be diverted toward rebuilding Hamas’s military infrastructure. Washington is counting on the idea that linking reconstruction and development projects with Gulf countries will help create a more stable social and economic foundation for governing the sector in the future. The broader strategy is to gradually transform the environment in which decisions are made, making violence a less appealing option.

“There is also a political upside: the plan creates space for Israel to anchor its security within a broader regional arrangement. The involvement of several Arab states in monitoring, border control, and subsequent stabilisation opens the door to coordination that once seemed impossible. Israel gains an opportunity to tie its long-term strategy not only to its own capabilities but to the growing interest of Arab governments in regional stability. This helps build trust and lowers the risk of escalation.

Another strength of the plan is that it avoids unrealistic calls for an immediate political settlement. Instead, it lays out a gradual, step-by-step process that acknowledges the fragmented nature of Palestinian governance and the lack of a unified negotiating position. Such flexibility reflects the understanding that any attempt to instantly create a unified Palestinian administration is doomed to fail. The Trump plan therefore focuses on steadily strengthening institutions that could eventually become the foundation of a more stable political structure,” Tsukerman said.

According to Tsukerman, Netanyahu’s optimism is rooted largely in this step-by-step approach. The Israeli prime minister views the plan as a tool that allows Tel-Aviv to maintain strategic initiative without compromising on key security issues. The language of the plan gives Israel room to oversee demilitarisation efforts, participate in shaping border-control mechanisms, and influence the development of Gaza’s future administrative structures. This enables Netanyahu to demonstrate to his electorate that Israel is not being pressured from the outside but is helping shape the post-war reality on its own terms.

“Another source of optimism for Netanyahu is the confidence that Trump views him as a key partner in the region. The Israeli prime minister sees this plan not only as a diplomatic mechanism but also as an important political signal that Washington will not impose decisions that could be perceived as a threat to Israel’s security. He expects that, with U.S. support, he will be able to maintain a balance between international pressure and domestic political constraints.

An important factor is the growing understanding that regional states are tired of constant instability. They are increasingly interested in establishing a regional mechanism for Gaza’s reconstruction. Netanyahu sees this as an opportunity to integrate the Gaza issue into a broader regional normalisation process — the very existence of which, even if it progresses slowly, gives Israel the ability to reduce the level of threat from radical groups

At the same time, Netanyahu’s domestic political calculations are also evident: he seeks to demonstrate that he can maintain international oversight over the future of the Gaza Strip and uses Trump’s plan as proof that any new political structure for the territory will be developed with Israel’s interests in mind. This allows him to strengthen his position amid internal pressure and growing criticism.

Finally, Netanyahu’s optimism is further reinforced by the plan’s provision for long-term control over the demilitarisation process. The Israeli prime minister believes that the mechanisms for inspection, monitoring, and control over Gaza’s military infrastructure create a unique opportunity to prevent past mistakes from repeating. He hopes that this plan will form the basis of a new regional order in which Israel will be a central participant in the security architecture,” said Tsukerman.

Meanwhile, Avraham Shmulevich, Israeli political analyst specialising in the Caucasus, Islamic world, and the Middle East, chairman of the Institute for Eastern Partnership (Jerusalem), suggested that the essence of Trump’s plan is best captured by a line from a poem by Leo Tolstoy: “It’s neatly written on paper, but they forgot about the ravines.”

“This phrase is quite applicable to this document, albeit with one caveat: the ‘ravines’ haven’t been forgotten, and everyone who supported it keeps them in mind. If you read the text carefully, it gives the impression of a slogan: ‘For all that is good, against all that is bad.’ It lists the goals — disarming Hamas, achieving peace in the Gaza Strip, and its economic reconstruction — yet it is unclear who and how these goals are supposed to be implemented in practice. Hamas has already stated that it has no intention of disarming, and U.S. representatives have previously warned that, in such a case, Israel would resume military action,” he said.

He added that this effectively returns the situation to what it was before the resolution was adopted — essentially, a continuation of the conflict.

“Hamas will not disarm because for them, that would be a death sentence. The movement’s charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel. Its leaders have long become dollar-billionaires and profit from aid flows, much of which is partially embezzled. Just today, reports surfaced of around half a billion dollars stolen by an organisation set up to collect donations for Gaza. As a result, the leadership’s economic and political interests make abandoning the armed path impossible.

Furthermore, the question of the international forces mentioned in the plan remains problematic. So far, only Türkiye and Indonesia have expressed willingness to participate, but even if their participation were confirmed, they would still not disarm Hamas. This means the entire Trump plan collapses, because without dismantling the movement’s military structure, peace in Gaza is unachievable.

The only theoretical option is pressure on Hamas from Türkiye and Qatar. These two countries could, in principle, take extremely tough measures, up to threatening to arrest the group’s top leadership. However, it’s important to understand that Hamas is a terrorist organisation not only against Israel but also against Arabs — it has killed more Arabs than Israelis — and it has numerous enemies within the Gaza Strip. If the movement were to give up armed struggle, all these past crimes would come back to haunt it. In other words, the internal logic of the conflict pushes Hamas to continue its resistance.

On the other hand, without pressure from Türkiye and Qatar, disarming Hamas would be possible only through Israeli military force — in other words, by restarting the war. So it’s unclear how this plan is supposed to work in practice. The authors of the document may be aware of its impracticality. Most similar plans in recent decades have ended up in the trash bin. The EU and the U.S. also understand that tackling corruption within the Palestinian Authority is impossible, and they don’t even set such conditions, knowing the mechanism would fail.

Overall, the plan sounds appealing on paper, but how it will actually be carried out remains unknown. Perhaps Trump will try to pressure Qatar and Türkiye into forcing Hamas to disarm,” Shmulevich concluded.