“Reports circulating about ideas Donald Trump floated to Arab and Muslim leaders on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, if confirmed and announced as an executive plan, and if Netanyahu fails in his Monday meeting with Trump to block or water them down — point to a U.S. retreat from its previous stance,” writes the Palestinian analyst and columnist Hani al-Masri on his personal page and Masarat.ps portal. “These ideas are being read as an American attempt to save Israel from itself, even at the expense of Israel’s objectives in Gaza — genocide, annexation, displacement — and of its creeping settlement and annexation in the West Bank.”
According to al-Masri, Ron Dermer had already discussed the plan with Jared Kushner and Tony Blair before it was floated to Arab and Muslim leaders. Blair’s name has even been raised as a potential “de facto governor” of Gaza during a transitional phase. While the 21 clauses of the plan have not been fully published, the elements disclosed so far diverge from Washington and Tel Aviv’s prior positions and come closer to the Arab initiative adopted at the Cairo Summit in March.
Al-Masri underscores that while not all 21 points of the plan have been made public, the provisions that have surfaced reveal, in his sharp reading, a framework that looks far closer to the Arab initiative adopted in Cairo last March than to Israel’s declared war aims. Among the points he highlights are: a ceasefire followed by the release of Israeli captives after twenty days, Hamas’s disarmament and removal from governance, the establishment of a Gaza self-administration under Arab and international supervision led by Washington with only a limited role for the Palestinian Authority, reconstruction funded by Arab and international donors, humanitarian aid channelled through the UN, the creation of a joint Arab-UN security force, and a phased Israeli withdrawal.
“LESSONS FROM HISTORY”
Al-Masri recalls that in 2003, when the “Road Map” was proposed, Ariel Sharon responded with a “yes, but” and 14 reservations that gutted its core. The plan’s hidden goal, echoing George W. Bush’s 2002 speech, was to replace the PLO leadership with one that would cooperate in the “war on terror.” Even after the Palestinian leadership changed, the plan was never implemented.
The lesson, al-Masri warns, is clear: “Without caution, Trump’s plan could reproduce a similar scenario — creating Palestinian authorities tailored to American and Israeli conditions. What appears to be a retreat may be no more than a tactical step back designed to undermine the global momentum that has forced Israel into isolation.”
That isolation, he notes, has already pushed nearly 160 states to recognize Palestine and moved Arab, European, and international actors toward sanctions.
A U.S.–ISRAELI TACTICAL RETREAT?
Al-Masri highlights a second risk: “a counter-bargain” between the Arab plan and an Israeli one. Netanyahu may introduce conditions that preserve “security buffer zones” in Gaza, grant Israel unilateral rights of intervention, secure Israeli participation in reconstruction bodies and Gaza’s self-administration, and impose terms that hollow out the Palestinian Authority or reshape it to meet Israel’s demands entirely.
“THE WEST BANK IN THE CROSSHAIRS”
In return for halting its war in Gaza, Israel is expected to demand greater freedom of action in the West Bank. While Arab and European pressure may prevent sweeping formal annexation, partial annexation of areas around Jerusalem and sovereignty over settlements could still proceed. Israel could also move to reclassify Area B, under Palestinian civil control, into Area C, under full Israeli control — effectively dismantling Palestinian authority in most of the West Bank. In practice, al-Masri argues, this would place more than 80% of the territory under Israeli civil and security rule.
GLOBAL PRESSURE AS GUARANTEE
The one factor that might keep Washington from diluting the plan, al-Masri argues, is sustained international mobilization in support of Palestinians. “For this to be more than a temporary cover, global pressure — sanctions, boycotts, legal accountability — must continue.”
The greatest danger, he adds, is that the proposals “impose conditions on the victim, while none on the aggressor: disarm the Palestinians, remove Hamas, place them under Arab-international trusteeship — in practice, American leadership — while leaving Israel free of constraints.” Such a setup, he warns, keeps the danger of displacement alive under the banner of “transition.” With Tony Blair and Jared Kushner shaping this scenario, the risk of forced displacement persists, particularly if international momentum weakens or divisions emerge within the pro-Palestine coalition.
A CHANCE TO HALT GENOCIDE
“Still, there is an opportunity,” al-Masri concludes. “The U.S. is seeking to save Israel from its own excesses — even at the expense of its extremist government — because that government’s arrogance and illusion of unlimited power have driven it into crisis. But seizing this opportunity requires continued Palestinian steadfastness, resistance, and insistence on rights, not submission to unjust conditions disguised as Palestinian demands.”
He stresses that only through global boycott and sanctions, Palestinian unity of representation free from trusteeship or co-optation, and free elections enabling Palestinians to choose their leadership, can any plan be turned from a tactical retreat into real change. “The solution lies not only in replacing Netanyahu’s government,” al-Masri writes, “but in bringing down the entire expansionist project of occupation, settlement, annexation, and displacement.”
…End
