Introduction
It is not new that a ceasefire took effect on October 10, 2025, which has brought a brief calm to Gaza after nearly two years of constant fighting between Israel and Hamas. This conflict began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched surprise attacks that killed over 1,200 Israelis and led to the kidnapping of 251 hostages. The 72-hour of hope, part of US President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan, offered a rare moment of hope.
Since the start of the war during the former President Biden administration, Israeli airstrikes and military actions have devastated Gaza, resulting in over 68,000 Palestinian deaths and forcing nearly two million people to flee their homes. However, President Trump’s peace proposal, which he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced at the White House on September 29, 2025, was revealed amid the ongoing humanitarian crisis and sparked renewed international diplomatic efforts.
The first part of the agreement, which the United States, Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey helped mediate, was signed in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, on October 9. This allowed for the release of remaining hostages, with 20 still alive and 28 confirmed dead during the ceasefire. As Trump declared a “new dawn in the Middle East” in front of the Knesset on October 13, the last hostages returned home.
Trump’s plan aims to create a demilitarised Gaza focused on economic growth and peace. However, mistrust remains beneath the surface of the celebrations. This article examines how Trump’s 20-point plan has revived diplomatic efforts, the challenges faced, and whether this ceasefire represents a real step toward lasting peace or just another pause in a long-standing conflict.
Background of the Conflict and Trump’s Plan
The Israel-Hamas conflict is one of the most difficult and emotional struggles in the world. It involves long-standing arguments over land, deep political distrust, and a tragic loss of life. The fighting is part of a larger issue between Israelis and Palestinians that goes back to the mid-20th century, hindering many peace efforts. The war in 2023 was one of the bloodiest yet, leaving Gaza in ruins and displacing hundreds of thousands of civilians, once again raising global concerns about the humanitarian cost.
However, Egypt, Qatar, and the United Nations tried to negotiate ceasefires, but these led to temporary peace at best. Both sides blamed each other for breaking agreements and acting in bad faith. Israel argued that it couldn’t ensure security because of Hamas’s actions, including firing rockets and using tunnels. Hamas countered that the ongoing blockade and occupation were causing Gaza’s suffering. As of early 2024, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza was severe, with major shortages of power, food, and clean water. Hospitals could not cope with the rising number of casualties, and the United Nations warned that Gaza faced total collapse.
A new offer for peace gained quick attention. Supporters viewed it as a bold step that could restart failed negotiations, while critics called it a political move that showed excessive naivety. Some Arab leaders cautiously welcomed the idea, hoping it could reduce regional tensions, while the Israeli government said it would consider it if security guarantees were provided. However, Hamas reacted negatively, calling the proposal an attempt to impose foreign terms on Gaza.
By 2025, diplomatic meetings began in Europe and the Middle East to explore the Trump plan. This was the first time in years that Israeli and Palestinian representatives had even preliminary talks, showing a willingness to listen. Even the most skeptical observers were intrigued, wondering if this ambitious plan could lead to peace.
Trump’s 20-Point Peace Framework
In early 2025, Donald Trump released a 20-Point Peace Framework, bringing his role in international relations back into focus. This plan aimed for a permanent ceasefire and stability in the region. It included economic benefits, political changes, and security guarantees. While it was not the first U.S.-sponsored peace effort in the Middle East, it stood out because Trump promised to create peace, rebuild Gaza, end endless wars, and avoid relying solely on political groups.
The plan focused on three main goals: disarmament, reconstruction, and recognition. The first goal called for all militant groups in Gaza to be disarmed under the supervision of a coalition of neutral countries like Egypt, Turkey, and Jordan. The second goal emphasised large-scale rebuilding, with a proposed $50 billion international fund to restore Gaza’s infrastructure, hospitals, and schools, and create jobs for locals. The third goal aimed to ensure Israel’s security within established borders while offering Palestinians limited self-governance under a new administration, with future discussions on statehood.
The framework also addressed ongoing issues such as prisoner exchanges, border access, and humanitarian corridors. Trump proposed forming a Middle East Security Alliance, similar to NATO, to enforce the ceasefire and prevent further conflict. This initiative would encourage Gulf states to invest in Gaza’s economy and renewable energy projects as part of post-war recovery.
Critics pointed out that this framework resembled Trump’s earlier 2020 proposal, known as the Deal of the Century, which Palestinian leaders had rejected. However, some viewed the 2025 version as more practical, especially because it focused on international oversight instead of U.S. control. European diplomats called it imperfect yet worth trying, and the United Nations expressed cautious optimism, saying any realistic plan must start with de-escalation and humanitarian aid.
The proposal gained some support, especially from Israel, provided that Hamas agreed to disarm. The political wing of Hamas responded by asking to include defensive capabilities, which halted further progress on the plan. Despite its challenges, the framework revived hope for the peace process, something many did not expect from such a controversial figure.
Global and Regional Reactions
Trump’s 20-Point Peace Framework sparked global debate, dividing opinions politically and ideologically. In Washington, Republican supporters praised it as a bold diplomatic move, while critics viewed it as a bid for attention rather than genuine peace efforts.
In the Middle East, the Israeli Prime Minister welcomed the framework as a discussion foundation but prioritised national security. The Palestinian Authority showed little interest, calling for respect for international law, while Hamas rejected key elements, notably disarmament.
Regional responses varied; Egypt and Jordan welcomed the diplomatic focus but insisted on a Palestinian state, while Qatar offered to host follow-up talks. Saudi Arabia supported regional stability efforts, and Iran dismissed the plan as undermining Palestinian resistance. European leaders expressed cautious optimism, with the EU calling it “imperfect but constructive.”
On the ground in Gaza, many civilians were sceptical and weary of promises, though some held hope that even a flawed plan could end the violence. Overall, Trump’s initiative reignited global discussions on peace in the Middle East.
The Negotiation Process and Key Challenges
The 2025 peace initiative reached a critical stage, focusing on negotiations after an initial wave of international responses. A joint committee made up of representatives from the United States, Egypt, and the United Nations began diplomatic talks in early March. Meetings took place in Geneva, Doha, and Cairo, showing an effort to find common ground for both sides. International observers and media outlets closely followed the discussions.
From the start, deep mistrust shaped the process. Israeli representatives insisted that Hamas dismantle its military infrastructure and provide strong security guarantees. Without clear commitments from Israel to lift the blockade on Gaza and stop military incursions, Hamas refused to disarm. This led to weeks of stalled progress, with each side accusing the other of bad-faith negotiation.
To help mediate, Trump’s team proposed a phased approach. This plan included a 60-day ceasefire supervised by international peacekeepers, followed by gradual reconstruction in exchange for confirmed disarmament. Egypt and the European Union supported the idea, but hardliners on both sides opposed it. Some militant leaders in Gaza saw disarmament as giving in, while far-right factions in Israel worried the plan might reward terrorism.
In addition to these main disputes, political and logistical challenges were significant. There were concerns about how to distribute aid, who would manage Gaza’s reconstruction fund, and whether the Palestinian Authority or Hamas should handle civilian affairs. The future status of East Jerusalem and prisoner exchanges also became contentious issues.
Despite these challenges, negotiators reached a limited agreement on humanitarian access. Both sides decided to create temporary safe zones for civilians and allowed UN-supervised aid convoys into Gaza. Humanitarian organisations praised this small victory but warned that it was fragile and could easily change.
By mid-2025, the Trump-led negotiations had stalled. Although some progress was clear, it was painfully slow. Israel and Hamas sat together at the same diplomatic table for the first time in years. However, it remained uncertain whether deep mistrust, political differences, and conflicting national interests would thwart hopes for lasting peace.
Humanitarian Efforts and Gaza’s Reconstruction
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza requires immediate action as political negotiations continue to stall. Years of conflict have devastated the area, leaving many families in makeshift shelters, hospitals running on minimal supplies, and neighbourhoods in ruins. Despite the ongoing uncertainty, aid organisations have begun a large humanitarian response, leading to one of the most complex recovery efforts in the region’s history.
In April 2025, the Trump Peace Committee, with the help of the European Union and the United Nations, launched the Gaza Reconstruction and Recovery Initiative. This program aims to rebuild homes and schools while restoring essential infrastructure like water, power, and healthcare systems. The United States contributed $5 billion, Gulf nations such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates added $10 billion, and the European Union provided logistical and technical support.
One key feature of the 2025 initiative is its focus on transparency. It set up a digital monitoring system to track each stage of the reconstruction process. This marks a departure from previous aid efforts, which frequently faced accusations of corruption and mismanagement. Now, local communities and foreign donors can see the real-time progress of projects and understand how funds are being used.
However, the reconstruction faced challenges. Political disputes often disrupted aid, and blockade restrictions made it hard to import crucial supplies like steel and cement. Israel required that all shipments be inspected to prevent weapons smuggling. Hamas accused Israel of using security concerns as a reason to delay reconstruction. Still, by mid-year, hundreds of housing units and public facilities had been restored in areas under UN supervision, despite these tensions.
Humanitarian groups like UNICEF and the Red Cross played a vital role in addressing urgent needs. They provided medical outreach for injured civilians, food assistance, and psychological support for children. Although the improvements were gradual, the visible changes in daily life gave people a glimmer of hope during uncertain times. Many Gazans saw the reconstruction as a test of whether peace could lead to real help, not just rebuilding. Each restored school or reopened clinic stood as a small but important reminder that healing was still possible after the war.
Outcome and Evaluation of the 2025 Peace Initiative
By the end of 2025, the peace initiative led by Trump brought both uncertainty and progress. Although it did not create the hoped-for complete peace deal, it achieved some specific goals that temporarily reduced conflict and improved diplomatic relations in the Middle East.
The longest-lasting achievement was the ceasefire that started in June 2025. This truce, mediated by diplomats from the United States, Egypt, and Qatar, continued longer than any other since 2014. Under the supervision of UN observers at key border points, both Israel and Hamas agreed to stop fighting. This pause, though fragile, allowed for reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to move forward without interruption.
Another success was the reopening of diplomatic ties between Israel and moderate Arab nations. The talks led to increased trade and security discussions with Jordan, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates, reviving cooperation under the Abraham Accords. The United States also sought to leverage this momentum by proposing a regional infrastructure plan that would boost Gaza’s economy through connections with its neighbours.
Despite these successes, the peace effort did not reach its main goal of settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Key issues like disarmament, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and the status of Jerusalem continued to cause significant divisions. Israel refused to negotiate with Hamas, which it deemed a terrorist group, while Hamas rejected any plan that did not guarantee full sovereignty.
Analysts had mixed opinions about the peace plan. Some praised Trump’s involvement for breaking a long diplomatic deadlock and raising awareness of humanitarian issues in the conflict. Others criticised the plan for focusing too much on political symbols instead of real changes and lacking long-term enforcement and inclusivity.
For many people in southern Israel and Gaza, the peace plan’s impact was more about immediate relief—like reopened border crossings, fewer airstrikes, and gradual rebuilding rather than political resolution. While it did not result in a lasting agreement, it showed that diplomacy could still create opportunities for healing and communication in this long-standing conflict.
Conclusion
The Trump peace initiative of 2025 changed how people talked about the Israel-Hamas conflict and Middle East diplomacy. It demonstrated that even those with deep disagreements could restart negotiations during humanitarian crises and under global pressure. The initiative led to a ceasefire and a renewed international effort to help Gaza recover, though it did not create a lasting solution.
The initiative highlighted an important lesson: empathy, trust, and accountability matter more for regional peace than just power. The events of 2025 reminded us that, despite its flaws, diplomacy is our best way to break the cycle of war. However, it is uncertain if future leaders can build on this fragile beginning.
About The Author
