The prisoner exchanges and the announcement of the “Trump Plan” for Gaza, brokered by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio were met with a sigh of relief for many Palestinians.
Yet, as the dust settles, it’s clear this plan has markedly divergent interpretations.
The agreement now appears to be fracturing, mostly under the weight of its own ambiguity. While the plan introduced the prospect of “Stabilization Forces” and saw Hamas publicly abandon its arms and methods of terror, the underlying core conflict has simply shifted from all-out war to the “fine print.”
Experts now fear this lack of clarity is exacerbating the very extremism that destabilizes the region. This extremism, in turn, threatens Israel and its allies (and consequently the population of Gaza due to retaliatory actions), and extends the conflict to Western nations.
The Palestinian interpretation
Jonathan Kuttab
For Palestinians and their advocates, the “Trump Plan” is a cynical cover for what they deem an unlawful “occupation” by the Israeli Defense Forces. In a recent email analysis, Jonathan Kuttab of Friends of Sabeel North America argues the plan provides Israel with “new opportunities and methods to continue its plans for Gaza.”
From this perspective, the “new reality” doesn’t really appear all that new.
First is the issue of aid, which Kuttab alleges has been weaponized, primarily because the promised “surge of unimpeded food supplies” has not materialized. Instead, he alleges, Israel “will control and determine the amount and forms of humanitarian aid,” in effect using food and water as political leverage.
The second issue is that of Israeli occupation in Palestinian territory and recent calls for the annexation of the Gaza Strip via a bill in the Knesset, which was subsequently dismissed as “stupid” by U.S. Vice President JD Vance.
The Trump agreement’s “yellow line” of demilitarization has been interpreted by Israel as granting it control over 58% of Gaza. Kuttab alleges “systematic demolition” is continuing in this zone, preventing any Palestinian return. The FOSNA report contends Israel maintains the right to conduct bombings at will, with the U.S. predictably endorsing these actions as “justified Israeli self-defense.”
This interpretation, if it can even be considered a ceasefire, offers a remarkably broad definition of the term.
Finally, a new element is the alleged use of “Israeli armed and directed gangs” operating within Gaza. Israel reportedly views opposition to these gangs as a violation of the agreement, creating a pretext for further strikes.
For Kuttab and other Palestinian observers, this is not peace but a continuation of the highly disputed claim of a Palestinian genocide perpetrated by Israel and aided and abetted by the U.S.
The Israeli interpretation
From the Israeli and U.S. perspective, the plan’s primary function is not Palestinian sovereignty, but Israeli security — viewed as critically important in the continuing fallout from the Oct. 7, 2023, attack that launched the conflict.
Hamas’ agreement to “hand over control” is viewed not as a concession, but a direct result of overwhelming military pressure. The continued Israeli military presence and the “yellow line” are thus seen as non-negotiable security buffers to prevent the rearming and regrouping that followed past ceasefires.
The plan’s language authorizing intervention if Hamas threatens “its population” is being interpreted broadly as a green light to strike any remnant of Hamas governance or resistance. Israeli Stabilization Forces also are there to manage the territory, not govern it.
In this view, the control of humanitarian aid is a necessary security measure to prevent supplies from being “hijacked by Hamas,” a validated and documented claim that was both a constant refrain during the war and a pretext for imposing military blockades.
For both the U.S. and the Israeli security establishment, every truck of concrete is a potential bunker, every hospital or school is a potential base, and every dollar of aid is a potential weapon for funding arms.
An aerial view of the Bani Suheila Junction, following the withdrawal of Israeli forces, in east of Khan Yunis, Gaza on November 3. The area is one of the city’s main transportation hubs. Numerous residential and commercial buildings, as well as infrastructure, have sustained severe damage. The destruction of the junction has cut off the connection between eastern and southern Khan Yunis. (Photo by Mohammed Eslayeh/Anadolu via Getty Images)
What is peace?
The core challenge of this conflict lies in the absence of a shared understanding of “peace.”
For some Palestinians, peace signifies full sovereignty “from the river to the sea,” encompassing the territory currently recognized as the State of Israel. This aspiration is interpreted by some Jews as a demand for the extermination of their people and the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from the region.
For Israelis, peace could involve either the annexation of all Palestinian territories (the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza) or a Two-State Solution. The latter proposal has been consistently rejected by Netanyahu and his right-wing government due to security concerns and political considerations.
“The ‘Trump Plan’ has thus failed to create a common goal.”
The “Trump Plan” has thus failed to create a common goal, which is a recurring theme of U.S.-backed Middle East peace deals. This failure has profound consequences for the Middle East and the West. Further, it validates extremism on both sides.
When Palestinian advocates like Kuttab label the peace plan itself a tool of “genocide” and chant “from the river to the sea,” Israeli hardliners see it as proof that the Palestinians do not want peace, but the destruction of Israel. This is the position of Jewish commentators such as Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager, who infamously summed up the debate with these words: “It may be the hardest conflict to solve, but it is the easiest to explain. … One side (the Palestinians) wants the other side (the Israelis) dead.”
When right-wing legislators in the Knesset propose annexing Gaza, they provide justification to Palestinians accusing Israel of genocide and a desire to ethnically cleanse the region. They also alienate their allies in the West who have long supported a two-state solution.
These positions are not sustainable for a lasting peace. The rise in extremism has devastating consequences for Jews and Arabs around the world.
It also affects domestic politics. As I have previously written, the perception that the Biden administration and now the Trump administration has given Israel a carte blanche is, as we speak, unraveling coalitions on both the left and the right, from Palestinian activists and Arab-American voters to Groypers and antisemites. Trump’s plan, seen as even more heavily skewed toward Israel, will only deepen that animosity. It radicalizes Western discourse, making a nuanced middle ground impossible.
The “Trump Plan” was sold as a pragmatic solution and the deal of the century potentially meriting Trump a Nobel Peace Prize. Instead, it has created a set of conditions where one side believes it is overseeing an ongoing security operation while the other believes it is enduring a U.S.-funded genocide.
It is a tragedy that both of these statements are demonstrably false; yet, pointing this out makes one a target of accusation.
This new “peace” has solved and will solve nothing. It has only ensured the fight will continue, both at home and abroad.
David Bumgardner
David Bumgardner is a writer, theologian and educator living in Columbus, Ohio. He is a former BNG Clemons Fellow and a graduate of Texas Baptist College at Southwestern Seminary. He is a licensed commissioned pastor and holds an evangelism license through the Anglican Province of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Diocese of Boga, and Missio Mosaic, an ecumenical missional society and religious order. He is awaiting the conferral of his master of arts in practical theology degree from Winebrenner Theological Seminary.
Related articles:
‘Pro-family’ groups say Israel is wrongly blamed for genocide in Gaza
The children are starving; God is screaming | Opinion by Mallory Challis
100 international aid groups say Israel is blocking help for Gaza
Israel bears no responsibility for 50,000 dead Palestinians and those now starving, Huckabee says