As the dust settles on Washington's 20-point proposal for Gaza, analysts and regional stakeholders are questioning whether the plan offers a viable path to peace or risks prolonging instability. Unveiled by U.S. President Donald Trump in late September, the initiative has drawn scrutiny for its lack of concrete mechanisms to address longstanding conflicts between Israel and Hamas.
Key Omissions Raise Concerns
Critics highlight three critical gaps: no binding timeline for Israel's full withdrawal from occupied territories, ambiguous details about the proposed International Stabilization Force's composition, and the absence of any reference to the internationally endorsed two-state solution. "Without clear benchmarks, this becomes less a roadmap and more a wish list," said Middle East analyst Fatima Al-Masri in a phone interview with KhabarAsia.
Hamas Rejects Core Elements
The Islamist group, excluded from recent negotiations, has already dismissed central provisions. Political analyst Raj Patel notes: "By sidelining Hamas while demanding their compliance, the plan risks repeating past diplomatic pitfalls. Sustainable peace requires all voices at the table."
With regional tensions simmering and humanitarian crises deepening, observers warn that vague proposals could exacerbate distrust. As international organizations call for renewed dialogue, the world watches whether this plan will evolve into actionable policy or remain a political placeholder.
