Opinion: Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza is deeply flawed but may be the best offer Hamas can expect

The 20-point Gaza peace plan thrashed out under the leadership of the United States and agreed to by Israel is one of the most comprehensive outlines put forward publicly by the Trump administration for ending the conflict with Hamas.

The plan reportedly has the buy-in of the Arab states as well as the UK and France. It could mark a pivotal point for ending the war.

But Hamas was not involved in developing the plan and has yet to give an answer (although it is reportedly studying the details). And it may be that the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has already doomed the project by declaring that Israel would “forcibly resist” a Palestinian state, apparently contradicting the plan he has just endorsed.

But beyond Hamas’s response, plenty of questions remain. The proposal is more a framework than a detailed plan and there are many points that require further negotiations and additional clarification for both parties.

Any agreement to end the war may fracture Netanyahu’s governing coalition. His finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich has already signalled his intention to oppose the plan, calling it a “resounding diplomatic failure” that would “end in tears”. So it is far from clear that Netanyahu can secure the agreement of his own parliamentary backers.

Hamas, meanwhile, is likely to view the plan as less of a proposal and more of an ultimatum. Both Netanyahu and Trump were clear that if Hamas rejects the plan, Israel will – in Trump’s words – “finish the job”, with all the further death and destruction that entails.

What would Hamas gain?

But the plan does include some things Hamas wants. For that reason it’s probably the best offer it is likely to get from the US and Israel. The war will immediately end. Israel will release nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and detainees – including 1,700 Gazans detained since 2023. Hamas members who disarm and accept coexistence with Israel will be given amnesty and allowed to leave if they choose.

Israel will not annex or “occupy” Gaza, the plans says. But it calls for Israel to have a security perimeter around the enclave and it’s not yet clear when Israeli troops will withdraw. Many Palestinians will view any remaining Israeli or international military presence as occupation.

The plan also promises to bring much needed relief to civilians via the restoration of humanitarian aid (on terms agreed in the January 2025 ceasefire). And it recognises the central role of the United Nations (along with the Red Crescent) in administering the aid – a key concession.

And, crucially, nobody will be forced to leave. In fact the plans says that people will be encouraged to stay. And those who do wish to leave will be able to do so and will be free to return.

What are the red flags for Hamas?

But Hamas is likely to see numerous red flags in the plan. Earlier in the year it was reported that some of the group’s leaders were open to phased decommissioning of arms.

But it will be difficult for the organisation to commit to full disarmament and demilitarisation, especially if swaths of Gaza (and other parts of Palestine) remain under Israeli control and the terms of Israeli withdrawal remain unspecified. Hamas will likely push for much clearer timelines for IDF withdrawal before committing to any type of public disarmament process.

The plan is also vague on any guarantees that the war would not just start up again after Hamas releases the hostages. Hostilities will end immediately the agreement is signed, followed by a 72-hour period to allow for all hostages to be released.

Hamas will want to see further assurances from the US and regional partners that the war will not resume once Israel has its hostages back. This has been a stumbling block previously.

It will also be difficult for Hamas to agree to signing over Gaza’s governance and redevelopment to non-Palestinians – especially to a body headed by Donald Trump. The plan envisions a two-tiered model for governance. The day-to-day running of services will be done by an apolitical, technocratic Palestinian committee.

It’s not yet clear who they will be – or who will select them. Sitting above them in an oversight role will be a new international transitional body. The so-called “Board of Peace” will be chaired by Trump and include other members and heads of state – including Tony Blair.

The former UK prime minister appears to have the support of Israel and some regional leaders. But he is a controversial choice for most Palestinians. Not only was he a prime mover in the “coalition of the willing” which accompanied George W. Bush’s Americans into Iraq. But also his leadership from 2007 to 2015 of the Quartet – a mediating body for the Israel-Palestine peace process – has been criticised as ineffective and too pro-western business.

There’s also ambiguity surrounding the future role of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in governance of Gaza. The 20-point plan specifies that this would not happen until the PA has completed the reform process outlined in Trump’s previous plan.

It is not clear who would define or assess those reforms. And, in any case, Netanyahu has flatly rejected any role for the PA in Gaza.

The plan is also intentionally noncommittal when it comes to Palestinian statehood. There is a carefully worded statement that recognises Palestinian self-determination and statehood as the aspiration of the Palestinian people, and suggests future conditions may allow for a pathway to take shape.

But Netanyahu has been clear that he will resist any moves towards Palestinian statehood. There is no mention of any framework for negotiations towards statehood in this agreement.

Gazans are desperate for the devastation to end. And Hamas is likely well aware that Trump’s plan, however flawed, is the best offer it will get from the US and Israel.

The question is if the parties involved are willing to work through the sticking points, or if they will frame any objections as a rejection and an excuse to continue the war.

1 October 2025

PhD Candidate Maria Ahmad (UCL Cognitive Neuroscience, Psychology and Language Science) details her experience voyaging with Marshallese sailors and exploring their ability of wave observation as a tool-free ancient nautical navigation system.

Maria Ahmad UCL PhD candidate
One of the biggest navigation challenges is knowing where you are in the open ocean without tools or devices. This remarkable skill is exemplified by the ancient techniques once used by expert navigators of the Marshall Islands, a chain of low-lying coral islands and atolls situated between Hawaii and the Philippines.

Together with a cognitive neuroscientist, philosopher, Marshallese anthropologist and two Indigenous sailors, I was part of a sailing expedition that aimed to explore how Marshallese sailors use their environment to find their way at sea. Aboard Stravaig, a 42ft (12m) trimaran (a boat with three hulls), the winds and waves carried us 60 miles from Majuro atoll to Aur atoll.

In the six years I lived in the Marshall Islands, I had never travelled past Eneko, a small islet within the lagoon of Majuro. I was always drawn to the reef where the lagoon meets the ocean, watching the white surf appear as the waves broke against the barrier that protected the atoll.

It was the knowledge of those waves that the ri meto (the person of the sea, a title given to a navigator by the chief), would dedicate their lives to mastering. By sensing subtle changes in ocean swells, the ri meto could detect the direction and distance to islands that lay thousands of miles beyond the horizon.

With this ancient knowledge, the ri meto mastered one of the most extraordinary skills known to humans: navigating the Pacific. But the devastating history of the Marshall Islands has extinguished the practice and currently, there is no officially appointed ri meto.

Alson Kelen is the apprentice of the last-known ri meto. His parents were displaced from the northern Bikini atoll during the US lead nuclear programme that detonated 67 atomic and thermonuclear bombs in the Marshall Islands during the 1940s and 50s.

Beyond the catastrophic destruction and suffering, it disrupted the inter-generational transfer of traditional knowledge, including navigation. As part of revival efforts by professor of anthropology Joseph Genz, Kelen captained the jitdaam kapeel, a traditional Marshallese canoe, from Majuro to Aur in 2015, relying solely on the traditional navigational skills he had learned as an apprentice.

Inspired by this, I was curious about the role that neuroscience played in understanding wayfinding at sea. Research in spatial navigation has revealed how the brain’s neural and cognitive processes help us find our way. Most of this research focuses on land-based navigation, either in lab settings or controlled environments using video games or virtual reality headsets. But the cognitive demands at sea are considerably greater with constantly changing factors, such as swells, winds, clouds and stars.

Neuroscience of navigation
As the director of Waan Aelon in Majel, a local canoe building and sailing school, Kelen chose two highly skilled traditional sailors to join us on our research expedition.

As we approached the channel, the steady waves of the lagoon gave way to the heavier ocean swells hitting the hull. The crew tightened the ropes and the sails were hoisted. All of a sudden, I felt the dominant eastern swell lift the boat. We had left the calm of the lagoon and were bound for Aur Atoll.

For the next two days, Stravaig was our lab on the ocean. For more than 40 hours we were collecting cognitive and physiological data from nine crew members, along with constant environmental data from our ever-changing surroundings.

We asked everyone to keep track of their estimated location throughout the voyage. Only two crew members (the captain and first mate) had access to GPS at intervals; others relied solely on the environment and memory. At hourly intervals, each crew member would mark their estimated position on a map, along with their predictions of how much time and distance remained till the first signs of land and eventually landfall itself. They also noted any environmental stimuli, such as the waves, winds or the position of the sun they were using.

The crew also rated four key emotions throughout the journey: happiness, tiredness, worry and seasickness. Each crew member wore an Empatica smartwatch, which recorded changes in their heart rate.

An accelerometer was mounted onto the top deck to record the movement of the boat as the wave patterns changed. A separate mounted 360° GoPro camera captured changes in the sails, clouds, sun, moon and movement of crew on deck.

Just before the last piece of land dipped under the horizon, each crew member pointed to five atolls: Jabwot, Ebeye, Erikub, Aur Tabal, Arno and Majuro. A covered compass was used to record the bearings. This was repeated across the journey to test orientation skills without reference to land.

By the end of this voyage, we had a rich collection of data that mixes subjective experiences with objective measurements of the environment. Every estimation plotted on a map, every emotion, every changing heart rate was recorded in conjunction with changes in wave patterns, the wind, the sky and the GPS beneath it all. This new data forms the foundation for a model that could begin to explain the cognitive process of wayfinding at sea, whilst also offering a glimpse into this ancient human ability, one that the ri meto mastered long ago.

This article originally appeared in The Conversation on 30 September 2025.

Links

• Article in The Conversation
• Dr Julie Norman's academic profile
• Department of Political Science
• Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences