Known unknowns in Gaza: Lack of clarity mars Trump's ambitious peace plan

Hamas rejects Trump-led peace plan as doubts linger over hostages, Israeli withdrawals, and post-war governance in Gaza, casting uncertainty over durable peace

Despite the celebrations erupting when United States (US) President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, signs of the 20-point peace plan fraying at the edges are already evident. Hamas leaders have announced that they will not be involved in the official signing of the peace plan, which Mr Trump will be attending with Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi and various world leaders in attendance at Sharm el-Sheikh on Monday. Hamas has described the plan, drawn up between Israel and the US without Hamas participation, as “absurd”. As Palestinians return to their pulverised homes from areas that the Israeli Defence Forces have begun vacating, peace in the short run is contingent on what happens in the 72 hours after the ceasefire starts. In the longer run, there appear to be too many obstacles and much lack of clarity for the plan to offer a durable peace for the region. 

Under the plan, Hamas must release all 20 hostages believed to be alive by noon (local time) on Monday. In addition, the remaining deceased hostages (about 26 of them) must be handed over within 72 hours, with some leeway to give Hamas time to locate them. In turn, the Israelis will release 250 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences and 1,700 detainees from Gaza. The problems could begin here because Israel has declined to release two high-profile leaders whom Hamas has demanded. It is also unclear what will happen if Hamas delays the release of the Israeli hostages. As aid workers prepare to surge into Gaza, a multinational force from Egypt, Qatar, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, overseen by the US military (though without boots on the ground), will monitor the ceasefire and check for transgressions. 

Assuming this first phase goes successfully — and there are multiple unknowns here — the broader plan is problematic. It is unrealistic to assume that Hamas will agree to disarm and play no role in a territory it has dominated since 2007. Hamas is even less likely to endorse handing over the strip over to its fierce rival, the Palestinian Authority (PA), which administers the West Bank, and from which it wrested control of Gaza. Israel, too, is reluctant to see the PA’s involvement in post-war Gaza. There are questions, too, around the ambit of responsibility of the “temporary transitional committee” of Palestinian technocrats, given that it will be  supervised by a “Board of Peace”, chaired by Mr Trump and involving former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, raising all the old bogeys of western colonialism. Together with a plan for economic development that centres on construction, it is difficult to escape the notion that Gaza could become a real-estate play for foreign corporations rather than a sustainable enclave for Palestinians to live in peace and prosperity. Most concerning is the question of Israeli credibility. Israel still occupies 53 per cent of the strip, though a phased withdrawal under the plan will reduce this to 15 per cent. Why should Israel be present in Gaza at all? Given its brazen encroachments in the West Bank, it is difficult to see Israel complying with any major retreat, the second since 2005, when it unilaterally dismantled all settlements. The open-ended nature of the proposals and the lack of good faith on either side will remain a challenge for lasting peace.