This is not our document; this was not the document sent by us.” — Pakistan Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar
President Trump introduced The Art of No Deal Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan as an attempt to end the ongoing genocide in Gaza However, the question remains: was it a genuine peace deal, and who were the primary stakeholders? The International Criminal Court (ICC) also wants President Netanyahu, just like it wants members of Hamas. The presence of both parties was essential to any credible peace process — so why was one party missing?
The 20 points of Trump
After a series of meetings with representatives from countries including Pakistan, Turkiye, and Qatar, President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu announced a 20-point peace plan at a joint conference. Minutes after the conference, Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the occupier state in Hebrew and said he did not agree to a Palestinian state and that IDF forces would remain in Gaza. That statement created an air of uncertainty and raised questions about Netanyahu’s commitment to The Art of No Deal Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan .
President Trump expressed optimism and tweeted, “There is a real good chance for peace in the Middle East.” Yet Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, in a press conference, countered that “this is not our document.” Trump had claimed that Pakistan’s Prime Minister Mian Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir were fully on board. Pakistan made it clear that it would not accept the plan without amendments. Eight Islamic countries jointly presented those amendments a day after the plan’s announcement.
FM Dar explained that the proposal from the eight Islamic states demanded an immediate ceasefire, restoration of humanitarian aid routes, return of displaced Gazans, reconstruction of Gaza, and a halt to any Israeli annexation of the West Bank. The Muslim Ummah presented this plan to end Gazans’ suffering. The Art of No Deal Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan contains no such clauses. From FM Dar’s remarks, it appears the administration ignored the Muslim countries’ demands and altered the document behind the scenes.
Worryingly, the main party discussed in the proposed Trump plan did not participate in the talks or the announcement. Trump gave Hamas 72 hours to accept the deal and warned he would formally enforce it afterward. Hamas refused, arguing the deal favors Israel.
Let’s examine what The Art of No Deal Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan proposes and how it diverges from the demands of the Muslim countries.
First, the plan explicitly states that the IDF will withdraw from Gaza. Yet minutes after the conference, Netanyahu publicly said they do not plan to withdraw IDF forces. This contradiction undermines the plan’s credibility. Even if one overlooks the apparent alteration, how can the Trump administration ensure Israeli compliance when top Israeli officials contradict the agreement?
Next, the agreement conditions the restoration of aid in Gaza on acceptance of the plan. Halting humanitarian aid in a famine-stricken region is a grave concern; humanitarian bodies such as the ICRC, ICC, UN, and Human Rights Watch consider such actions potentially criminal. This issue should have been addressed before any agreement, not left as a post-acceptance condition. Is the Trump administration implying aid will resume only if Gaza accepts terms that compromise its people? Given President Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize nomination, this raises serious ethical questions tied to The Art of No Deal Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan .
The plan also proposes technocratic governance in Gaza. Does this aim to liberate Palestinians or to replace existing leadership? The plan demands Hamas, the resistance movement recognized by many Gazans, disarm or leave Gaza. The proposal reads as tailored to the Netanyahu regime rather than to Palestinian interests. The plan calls for dialogue on peaceful coexistence, yet Netanyahu publicly rejected recognition of a Palestinian state. How can any agreement stand when key elements become void minutes after announcement?
The proposal mentions an International Stabilization Force (ISF) to deploy in Gaza but provides only vague details. Muslim countries pledged troops to protect Gaza: Indonesia offered 20,000 personnel, and Pakistan planned to send military personnel as well. The goal was a robust force to protect Gazans. Instead, the Trump plan suggests consultations with Jordan and Egypt, both of which critics accuse of harboring Hezbollah — a claim that complicates trust in their role.
Finally, the plan omits any mention of the West Bank — another major proposal from Islamic countries. It appears The Art of No Deal Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan excluded the Muslim countries’ suggestions. One might view the plan as a set of orders from an aggressor rather than a negotiated peace agreement.
From the peace plan’s text, one can deduce it does not favor the Palestinian people, particularly Gazans. The plan seeks to remove the security structure Gazans recognize by eliminating Hamas and replacing it with technocratic governance. A few clauses that seemed favorable were immediately repudiated by Netanyahu. Israel has a history of violating agreements, and without a credible stabilizing force from a stable Muslim country, the pact’s credibility remains doubtful. This event serves as an eye-opener for the Muslim community, which had hoped for a fruitful outcome.
Interception of the Samud Flotilla
The situation in Gaza is becoming more dangerous each day. On 2 October, the Global Samud Flotilla — an initiative by 45 countries to break the siege and deliver humanitarian aid — faced interception by the IDF. Humanitarian workers, including Greta Thunberg from Sweden, Mandla Mandela from South Africa, Senator Mushtaq from Pakistan, and others were taken captive and the aid was blocked. Authorities have not provided updates on their status. The IDF’s actions may violate maritime obligations because the ships carried only humanitarian supplies and no arms.
It is time for the world to stand firm and unite against the genocide inflicted on Gaza’s civilians. The immediate priority must be securing the release of humanitarian workers taken captive. Words of condemnation alone will no longer suffice.
Written by Kainat Shahid
Related
