Yes, but…
Trump’s plan — in its Israeli-modified version — cannot be outright rejected, for it carries within it some significant positive elements that cannot simply be ignored: a potential halt to the war, thwarting forced displacement, providing adequate humanitarian aid, and enabling prisoner exchanges. Rejecting it altogether would risk isolating Palestinians regionally and internationally.
Yet it also cannot be accepted, for it is riddled with dangerous landmines. Chief among them: the absence of any commitment to withdraw Israeli forces from Gaza, leaving the territory entirely under Israel’s hand; and the establishment of a trusteeship council over the Palestinians, led in practice by the notorious Tony Blair, while excluding the Palestinian Authority or any legitimate Palestinian representation. This would deepen the separation between the West Bank and Gaza and effectively erase the possibility of a Palestinian state.
The Authority is asked to carry out “reforms” that are practically impossible, since they entail formal recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and the disarmament of the Palestinian people — something unacceptable and unachievable under occupation. From the very first clause, the plan treats Palestinians as defendants burdened with obligations, with no guarantees or clear timetable for securing their rights, while Israel’s gains are guaranteed, time-bound, and enforceable.
A fundamental question arises: what guarantee is there that Netanyahu’s government will truly halt the war and not resume it, or abandon its policies of annexation, displacement, and settlement expansion — especially once Israeli prisoners are released early in the plan’s implementation?
The possible Palestinian response should be: “Yes, but…”. We must not believe those who insist the plan cannot be amended. After all, internal and international pressure has already forced Netanyahu to retreat from some of his positions — and such pressures remain alive and could intensify if Palestinian, Arab, and international political will is mobilized. The overwhelming majority of nations and peoples want an end to genocide and displacement, to prevent annexation, to end the occupation, and to embrace a political path leading toward — or at least beginning with — a Palestinian state.
It is vital to recall the closing paragraph of the statement made by the foreign ministers who met with Trump before his meeting with Netanyahu: while they welcomed American efforts and the plan, they stressed the need for a comprehensive agreement that addresses the core issues, including full Israeli withdrawal. For how could Arab or international forces be present while the Israeli army remains entrenched in Gaza? That would only cloak the occupation with legitimacy and provide it with cover.
