Trump's Gaza Plan will Fail, so will the Status Quo

US President Donald Trump’s "Gaza plan" is almost certain to remain unrealised. Legally dubious and politically unworkable, even Trump himself likely does not see it as a serious policy blueprint. Yet, his rhetoric has succeeded in shifting the regional discourse, underscoring a broader reality: the status quo in Gaza is unsustainable. Decades of ceasefire arrangements have failed to address the core drivers of instability. Without a new approach, Gaza risks remaining locked in a perpetual cycle of violence.

Cycles of stagnation

The existing ceasefire framework does not resolve the fundamental security dilemmas that sustain the conflict. Even if the current ceasefire holds – a significant assumption – Hamas’s political and military influence, and Israel’s security concerns, will highly likely persist.[i]

The geopolitical inertia surrounding Gaza has produced a predictable pattern: military escalation, ceasefire negotiations, partial reconstruction, and renewed conflict. This cycle benefits key actors – Hamas retains leverage, Israel secures short-term security gains, and external mediators maintain a degree of influence – while ensuring that a fundamental resolution remains elusive.

Intentions revealed

Trump highly likely does not intend to follow through on his Gaza proposal. Much like past tariff threats against Canada and Mexico, as well as his remarks on acquiring Greenland or reclaiming the Panama Canal, these statements appear primarily designed to shift the Overton Window in his favour. Rather than reflecting a concrete policy agenda, they should be understood as a strategic negotiation tactic aimed at extracting concessions and normalising previously unorthodox positions.[ii]

Specifically, Trump’s rhetoric may be intended to provoke concern among neighbouring Arab states and affluent Gulf nations, which have thus far remained reluctant to engage substantively in the post-conflict scenario. By introducing the possibility of direct US involvement, Trump’s remarks could pressure regional actors into assuming a greater role, ultimately reducing the likelihood of prolonged American military or financial entanglement.[iii]

Trump’s disinterest in policy details and lack of ideological convictions suggest that even if he were serious about the proposal, the logistical and political barriers to its implementation would almost certainly lead to significant revisions. Trump’s broader pattern of dealmaking indicates that he would likely be willing to adapt or reframe the plan substantially, potentially to the point where it bears little resemblance to his initial proposition, so long as he can claim a political victory.

Beyond false choice

The unilateral US occupation of Gaza and the forced relocation of Palestinians should be firmly rejected as a violation of international law.[iv] It would also likely require a significant US military commitment and be unpopular even among Trump’s core support base.[v] Yet, rejecting Trump’s plan should not mean embracing the status quo. 

For any post-conflict scenario in Gaza to be viable, it must go beyond temporary ceasefires and short-term aid. Three core elements are essential:

1. An International Stabilisation Force – Given the risk of Hamas’s resurgence, a temporary security presence in Gaza is necessary. This should not involve US troops but could include a coalition of Arab forces, potentially under United Nations (UN) oversight, to maintain order and facilitate reconstruction. Past stabilisation efforts in conflict zones – such as the Multinational Force in Lebanon or NATO’s role in post-war Bosnia – offer historical precedents, though they also highlight the risks of external military deployments.

2. A Coordinated Reconstruction Effort – Previous rebuilding efforts have been hampered by corruption, mismanagement, and political fragmentation. A Gaza Reconstruction Authority, led by regional players like Egypt and Jordan, with financial backing from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates and operational support from the European Union and UN, could oversee reconstruction in a way that bypasses Hamas while ensuring transparency and accountability.[vi]

3. A New Governance Framework – The Palestinian Authority lacks the credibility and capacity to govern Gaza effectively. However, a temporary international administration in coordination with Palestinian technocrats could lay the groundwork for long-term political stabilisation. Historical precedents such as Kosovo’s post-war governance under the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo offer a potential model.

No way back

The greatest danger is not the implementation of Trump’s plan, but the failure to acknowledge that the status quo is equally flawed. Simply restoring the failed governance structures of the past, shifting responsibility onto already fragile neighbours, or disregarding Israel’s legitimate security concerns will not produce stability.

A lasting framework must go beyond temporary ceasefires and short-term reconstruction to address the root causes of instability, rather than perpetuating a cycle of destruction. A Gaza strategy that merely reinstates what was previously broken is not a solution – it is a prelude to the next war.