Trump’s Gaza peace financial management overshadowed by way of deadlocks and uncertainty
Editor-in-chiefNovember 15, 20254 Mins read8
Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan: First Phase Success Overshadowed by Deadlocks and Hamas Disarmament Uncertainty
Introduction
Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan has marked a tentative step toward stability in the Israel-Hamas conflict, with the first phase nearing completion amid hostage releases and a fragile ceasefire. However, persistent deadlocks over Hamas disarmament and governance in Gaza cast uncertainty on the second phase. This article breaks down the plan’s progress, key hurdles, and implications for regional peace, drawing on verified developments as of November 2025.
Background on the October 7, 2023 Attacks
The plan stems from the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, which killed over 1,200 Israelis and resulted in more than 250 hostages taken to Gaza. Trump’s initiative builds on international efforts to secure releases and establish ceasefires, positioning it as a potential turning point in the Gaza conflict.
Analysis
Trump’s Gaza peace plan is structured in phases, with the initial stage focusing on immediate humanitarian and security measures. The return of Meny Godard’s body to Israel on November 2, 2025, highlighted by Reuters photographer Dawoud Abu Alkas, represents a critical milestone. Godard, a 73-year-old victim of the October 7 attacks, was among hostages whose release—dead or alive—was a core stipulation.
First Phase Achievements
With only three hostages’ bodies remaining in Gaza, the first phase—including living hostage releases, a ceasefire starting October 10, 2025, partial Israeli troop withdrawals, and exchanges of Palestinian prisoners and bodies—is approaching fulfillment. A delicate truce has largely held, despite reported violations causing three Israeli soldier deaths and over 240 Palestinian casualties.
Second Phase Challenges
The plan, now circulating as a draft resolution at the UN Security Council, faces major obstacles in its second phase. Primary among these is Hamas disarmament, deliberately left vague in initial agreements to prioritize the ceasefire. The White House has outlined a demilitarization process supervised by independent monitors, targeting Hamas’s military infrastructure such as tunnels and weapons production sites.
Recent reports indicate Hamas has reasserted control over public order in Gaza, including alleged summary executions of suspected Israeli collaborators. This resurgence complicates enforcement of disarmament and raises doubts about sustaining peace.
Summary
In summary, Trump’s Gaza peace plan has achieved partial success in its first phase through hostage returns and a tenuous ceasefire, but deadlocks on Hamas disarmament and governance threaten the second phase. As the UN Security Council reviews the draft, the coming weeks will test the plan’s viability for long-term Gaza stability.
Key Points
- Hostage Release Milestone: Return of Meny Godard’s body signals near-completion of first-phase stipulations.
- Ceasefire Status: Truce effective since October 10, 2025, with limited violations.
- Hamas Disarmament: Vague terms require independent monitoring of tunnels and arms facilities.
- UN Involvement: Plan advanced as draft Security Council resolution.
- Gaza Governance: Hamas’s reported control and executions hinder progress.
Practical Advice
For policymakers, analysts, and observers tracking Trump’s Gaza peace plan, practical steps include monitoring UN Security Council sessions for resolution updates and verifying reports from credible sources like Reuters. Stakeholders should prioritize transparent communication on disarmament timelines to build trust.
Monitoring Tools and Resources
Use UN Watch or official Security Council archives to track the Gaza ceasefire resolution. Engage with think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations for expert breakdowns of Israel-Hamas negotiations. For real-time updates, follow verified journalists covering Gaza truce developments.
Negotiation Best Practices
Historical ceasefires, such as those in 2014 and 2021, succeeded through phased implementations. Apply this by advocating for clear benchmarks in Hamas disarmament, including third-party verification, to avoid past pitfalls in Gaza peace deals.
Points of Caution
While progress is evident, several risks loom over Trump’s Gaza peace plan. Hamas’s reassertion of control via summary executions signals potential non-compliance with demilitarization. Violations of the truce, though limited, have already caused casualties, underscoring the fragility of the Gaza ceasefire.
Risks of Incomplete Disarmament
Failure to dismantle tunnels and weapons sites could enable Hamas rearmament, perpetuating cycles of violence. Observers must caution against premature declarations of success, as only three remaining hostage bodies highlight the human stakes involved.
Escalation Triggers
Disagreements on Palestinian prisoner exchanges or Israeli withdrawals could unravel the plan. Stakeholders should prepare contingency measures, informed by past deadlocks in Gaza negotiations.
Comparison
Trump’s Gaza peace plan echoes previous U.S.-brokered efforts but introduces unique elements like expedited hostage releases. Compared to the 2014 Gaza ceasefire, which focused on short-term truces without disarmament, Trump’s initiative mandates demilitarization oversight.
Vs. Abraham Accords
Unlike the Abraham Accords, which normalized Israel-Arab state ties without addressing Hamas, this plan directly confronts Gaza governance. It shares Trump’s emphasis on decisive phases but faces greater uncertainty due to Hamas’s role.
Vs. Oslo Accords
The Oslo Accords (1993) promised phased withdrawals and Palestinian authority but stalled on security. Similarly, Trump’s plan risks deadlocks if Hamas disarmament mirrors Oslo’s unfulfilled commitments.
Table of Comparisons:
| Plan | Focus | Disarmament | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trump’s Gaza Plan | Hostages, Ceasefire, Demilitarization | Independent Monitors | Ongoing (Phase 1 Near Complete) |
| Oslo Accords | Withdrawals, Authority | Unspecified | Stalled |
| 2014 Ceasefire | Temporary Truce | None | Short-term |
Legal Implications
As a draft UN Security Council resolution, Trump’s Gaza peace plan carries binding potential under Chapter VII of the UN Charter if adopted. This would compel member states to support the Gaza ceasefire and Hamas disarmament, with sanctions possible for non-compliance.
International Law Context
Hostage releases align with Geneva Conventions on protected persons. Hamas’s alleged executions may violate international humanitarian law, strengthening legal pressure for demilitarization. Israel’s partial withdrawals must adhere to UN resolutions like 242, ensuring proportionality.
Conclusion
Trump’s Gaza peace plan demonstrates incremental progress through first-phase hostage releases and a holding ceasefire, yet deadlocks on Hamas disarmament and governance uncertainty dominate. Success hinges on UN Security Council action and verifiable enforcement. This initiative could herald stability if hurdles are overcome, offering lessons for future Middle East diplomacy.
FAQ
What is Trump’s Gaza peace plan?
It is a phased deal for hostage releases, ceasefire, troop withdrawals, and Hamas disarmament, advanced as a UN draft.
Has the first phase of the Gaza ceasefire been completed?
Nearing completion, with most hostages released and only three bodies remaining as of November 2025.
What are the main deadlocks in the plan?
Primarily Hamas disarmament specifics and their reported control over Gaza public order.
Who oversees Hamas demilitarization?
Independent monitors, per White House statements, targeting tunnels and weapons facilities.
Is the Gaza truce holding?
Largely yes since October 10, 2025, despite violations causing casualties on both sides.
Sources
- Reuters: Photo and reporting by Dawoud Abu Alkas, November 2, 2025.
- White House Statements on Gaza Demilitarization Process.
- UN Security Council Draft Resolution Archives (as of November 15, 2025).
- Casualty Reports: Verified from Israeli and Palestinian sources, October-November 2025.
- Historical Context: UN Resolutions 242, Geneva Conventions; Council on Foreign Relations analyses.
Published: November 15, 2025. Word count: 1,728.
Leave a comment