Ceasefire or Political Subjugation? Trump’s Gaza Plan and Its Consequences

By Dr. Muhammad Tayyab Khan Singhanvi, Ph.D

The latest devastation in Gaza and Donald Trump’s twenty-point peace proposal offer a stark reflection of contemporary geopolitics. It is a plan that outwardly pledges ceasefire and humanitarian relief, yet in substance threatens to subordinate Palestinian self-determination to security conditionalities, rather than uphold it through legal and legitimate guarantees.

Since the bloody surge of October 7, 2023, Gaza has been thrust into the heart of a human calamity: hundreds of thousands displaced, thousands dead or injured, and a population clamoring for immediate, unconditional humanitarian access. Against this backdrop, Trump’s blueprint endorsed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emerges less as a neutral peace framework and more as a political document structured to reinforce Israel’s strategic anxieties.

At the heart of the plan lie provisions that raise troubling questions: the release of hostages within 72 hours, amnesty in exchange for disarmament, the creation of an international body called the “Board of Peace” to oversee reconstruction, and the explicit exclusion of Hamas from any role in governance. Though draped in the rhetoric of aid and rebuilding, these conditions in effect dismantle political representation, eradicate indigenous resistance structures, and consign Gaza’s future to external control. When an elected representative movement is deliberately excluded, the legitimacy of any peace settlement is gravely undermined. Lasting peace cannot be manufactured by marginalizing one side of the conflict; it can only take root when all stakeholders are accorded recognition, dignity, and a voice at the negotiating table.

International reactions reveal the plan’s contentious character. The Palestinian Authority has responded with guarded approval, while Islamic Jihad has issued a fierce rejection. Muslim states remain divided, their mixed positions signaling a subtle recalibration of regional interests and balances of power. Pakistan has voiced concerns and called for amendments; meanwhile, discord within the UN Security Council over ceasefire resolutions underscores that global consensus is absent. The involvement of figures like Tony Blair further compounds skepticism: his controversial role in the Iraq War casts a long shadow over claims of impartiality, raising doubts about the credibility of his involvement in such a delicate file as Gaza.

Legally and morally, the plan brims with peril. Will the political price of ceasefire stand scrutiny under international law? The specter of collective punishment, forced displacement, and conditional access to humanitarian relief runs afoul of international humanitarian law and the laws of armed conflict. Promises of aid and reconstruction mean little if they arrive tethered to political strings, or if they are managed by institutions unaccountable to local legitimacy and representation.

Military solutions, history has shown, rarely deliver durable peace. Should Hamas accept the plan, immediate relief such as hostage release and a temporary flow of aid may materialize. Yet the root causes of conflict occupied lands, interim governance arrangements, political rights, and the ultimate question of Palestinian statehood will remain unaddressed. Conversely, should Hamas reject the plan, Trump’s threats and Israel’s military superiority will likely translate into further bloodshed, heightened regional instability, and growing international isolation.

Policy prescriptions are therefore urgent and clear. First, the priority must be an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, unhindered humanitarian access, and credible steps toward hostage release. Second, Gaza’s political future cannot be outsourced to external “boards” or technocratic committees; local representatives, civil society, and the Palestinian Authority must play a central role to ensure respect for self-determination. Third, reconstruction funds require transparent oversight ideally under an empowered UN mission that ensures accountability, prevents corruption, and prioritizes local beneficiaries. Fourth, the long-moribund diplomatic track toward a two-state solution must be revived, with regional actors such as Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia serving as effective and impartial mediators. Finally, the Muslim world and the wider international community must articulate a unified and principled stance: without upholding human rights, international law, and the Palestinian right to self-determination, peace will remain illusory.

Pakistan’s Economy: The Path of Stability Amid Global Challenges

Gaza’s agony has made one truth undeniable: neither transient military victories nor externally imposed blueprints can secure lasting peace. Only justice, accountability, and a comprehensive political resolution can. Any settlement devoid of dignity and fairness is bound to be temporary and it is precisely this temporariness for which Gaza’s innocent civilians are paying the price today. Regional powers, the global community, and above all the Muslim world, including Pakistan, now face a historic test: to elevate justice above expediency, and to chart a path that halts the bloodshed while restoring Palestinians to their rightful claims.