Trump returns to the field with a plan for Gaza: a real solution or just smoke and mirrors?

Just when it seemed the international scene was already in turmoil, Donald Trump, the former president of the United States, decided to stir things up. On September 30, 2025, his team released the news: there's a new Trump peace plan for Gaza . A 20-point document that, they say, seeks to put an end to one of the world's longest-running and most painful conflicts. The move, like everything surrounding the tycoon, raises more questions than answers and forces us to examine the fine print with a magnate's eye.

Trump's peace plan for Gaza

The announcement wasn't made with much fanfare at a press conference, but rather through a carefully measured statement. They didn't release the entire document, which in itself raises a few eyebrows. Instead, they leaked the two conditions they consider non-negotiable, the foundation upon which everything else would be built. A kind of "this is what it is, take it or leave it" approach that defines the house style. Meanwhile, on the streets of Gaza, people continue to scramble to get a piece of bread or a little milk, far from the desks where their future is being decided.

What's on the table? The points that are known

famous Gaza peace plan rests, for now, on two pillars that sound as logical as they are difficult to implement. The first is the humanitarian card, the one that is almost impossible to reject in public: the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. It's the hook, the gesture that seeks easy applause and puts the pressure on Hamas. No one in their right mind would oppose the return of kidnapped people to their homes, but in the Middle East chess game, even the most obvious move has a hidden agenda.

The second point is where things get really tricky. The demand is for the total and absolute disarmament of Hamas and any other armed group in the Strip. This doesn't just mean handing over their rifles; it means dismantling their entire military infrastructure, from the rocket factories to the complex network of tunnels that run beneath the city like the veins of the conflict. This is a historical demand of Israel and, let's face it, the main reason why all previous peace attempts ended in vain. Asking Hamas to disarm is, in practice, asking it to cease to exist as a political and military force. A Gordian knot that no one has been able to untie.

As for the rest, the other 18 points, there's no news. They're a mystery that fuels all kinds of speculation. Coffee-shop analysts and career diplomats are racking their brains trying to guess what else the package might include. Will it talk about a temporary administration for Gaza? A Marshall Plan for reconstruction with money from the international community? Or security guarantees that keep everyone happy? For now, it's pure hallway gossip.

Europe gives the go-ahead, but with the fine print

What did surprise more than a few was the European Union's reaction. Brussels, where they are no fools and measure every word, gave the proposal a nod. The High Representative for Foreign Affairs, in diplomatic language that needs to be translated, said that the plan "includes constructive elements that should be explored." It's a notable change of script. Historically, Europe has always stood by the two-state solution and viewed Trump's moves in the region with suspicion.

However, it seems that the urgency of the humanitarian crisis and the weariness of the relentless violence have pushed them to be more pragmatic. It's as if they were saying: "Well, let's listen, after all, things can't get any worse than they are." But beware, support is not a blank check. The EU made it clear that any agreement must respect international law and, fundamentally, guarantee a dignified political solution for the Palestinian people. It's the fine print of the contract, the clause that can blow everything up if it's not fulfilled.

This European support, although conditional, gives Trump's initiative a little more weight. It could make it easier for the United States and Europe to pull together, at least initially. Furthermore, it positions the EU as a key player if, in one case, the plan moves forward and the time comes to put up the money to rebuild everything that was broken.

In the region, everyone takes care of their own game.

While the West is calculating, things are different in the Middle East. Each player has their own interests, and mistrust is the order of the day.

• Israel: For the Israeli government, hearing "disarm Hamas" is music to their ears. It's what they've been clamoring for for years. However, they're surely waiting to see what the other 18 points are. What concessions would they have to make? History shows they don't give anything away, and any point that involves ceding territory or control will be scrutinized.
• Palestinian National Authority: The PA boys in the West Bank are walking on eggshells. They're between a rock and a hard place. They can't flatly reject a peace initiative, but they can't sign anything either. Their main demand, the one they repeat like a mantra, is the recognition of a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. And of this, in the little that is known about the plan, not a word is said. Their initial silence is, in reality, a cry of caution.
• Hamas: For them, the proposal is almost a joke in bad taste. Total disarmament amounts to unconditional surrender, handing over the keys and disappearing from the map. It's like asking a soccer team to play without a ball or goalposts. Their rejection is obvious and turns the second pillar of the plan into a wall almost impossible to climb.

Splitting hairs: What is Trump trying to achieve with all this?

Beyond the details, the million-dollar question is what lies behind this move. Is it a genuine attempt to bring peace to a region that hasn't known it for decades, or is it a campaign move to reposition itself at the center of the world stage? The previous experience, with the Abraham Accords, left a bittersweet taste: many saw it as a historic achievement, while others criticized it for being an agreement between elites that completely ignored the Palestinian issue.

This plan seems to follow a similar logic. It puts on the table a maximum condition (disarmament) that it knows one of the parties cannot accept, which could be a strategy to leave Hamas as the sole culprit for the failure of the negotiations. Meanwhile, the lives of ordinary people continue as usual, marked by shortages, lack of work, and constant fear. While leaders discuss semicolons in documents drafted thousands of miles away, a child in Gaza just wants to know if he'll be able to go to school tomorrow or if he'll have clean drinking water.

Time will tell whether this proposal is a diplomatic checkmate or simply another pawn on an overly complicated board, where the losers are always the common people. For now, it's just another chapter in a seemingly endless story.