Trump's Plan, Absence of Alternatives, and the Future of the Gaza Strip

Two years of a genocidal war have claimed around a quarter of a million victims, including dead, injured, prisoners, and missing persons, and resulted in the destruction of 80% of the Gaza Strip, in addition to the spread of famine and disease. For two years, Palestinians, especially in Gaza, have been pleading with the world for intervention to even allow the entry of food and medicine, but to no avail; neither the United Nations, nor the Arab and Islamic worlds, nor the 160 countries that recognized the Palestinian state, nor Palestine and its authority—none have succeeded in stopping the slaughter and famine.

Even Hamas, which provided a pretext for the enemy to launch a war it was preparing for, is now appealing to the world for intervention after losing any hope of defeating Israel or achieving the goals it declared at the onset of the flood; goals that were, to begin with, misleading and impossible to achieve.

All of this made the Gaza Strip appear as a land without owners or a contested area not only between Palestinians and Israelis but also between Hamas and the Palestinian National Authority—the same applies to the West Bank. Here, Trump emerged as a savior and proposed his initiative in September 2025, calling for a ceasefire, if not ending the war and conflict, and spoke of a phased Israeli withdrawal, food and medicine entry, and opening crossings. The residents of the Gaza Strip were the first to welcome this, and we do not blame them for that.

Before the initiative, Trump was clear about his objectives from the start when he announced the displacement of Gaza's residents and turning the strip into a 'Riviera', while he and his son-in-law Jared Kushner talked about gas and the strategic location of the strip. With these statements, he introduced his initiative, which was approved and welcomed by the majority of countries in the world at Sharm El-Sheikh and at the Security Council, including all Palestinian factions, with Hamas at the forefront.

Trump did not intervene out of compassion for the Palestinian people or the residents of Gaza, nor in pursuit of peace, as peace does not align with occupation. We would be delusional to think that Trump would spend tens of billions to rebuild the strip only to withdraw from the scene and leave the people of Gaza to live in peace. Rather, he intervened for his personal interests and for the interests of America and Israel, acting with the logic of a businessman and deals, transforming the tragedy of Gaza into an investment and economic opportunity for himself.

Trump is a war criminal, no different from Netanyahu, and they share strategic goals, even if they differ in some tactics and methods of achieving those goals. But should we blame him for what is happening in Gaza because he temporarily halted the fire? Did he establish a (Peace Council) under his presidency that excluded the Palestinians while accepting a Palestinian administrative committee as a courtesy to the Arab mediators? Or should we blame an international system and incapable Arab and Islamic countries? Or should we blame the Palestinian factions that agreed to and signed Trump's initiative, and are now awakening to its dangers and returning to talk about the victory of resistance while procrastinating in disarming, and confronting the service management committee of Gaza and fearing its future role as a substitute for the factions?

In any case, Trump's initiative and his fictitious Peace Council, along with the current imbalance of power in favor of the enemy, is not the end of the road. What is essential is that the Palestinian factions recognize their mistakes, review their positions, abandon their demagogic rhetoric, and allow the people, whether in the strip or the West Bank, to determine their destiny through genuine democratic elections.