Connect with us

Featured

The 20-Point Gaza Plan: A Blueprint for Dispossession?

Published

on

The-20-Point-Gaza-Plan

As Gaza’s hospitals ran out of oxygen and children continued to die of hunger, a new “Peace Plan” emerged from Washington. The US President Donald Trump’s 20-Point Gaza Plan was announced recently in late September 2025. It has promised to rebuild Gaza and bring “a new era of stability.” However, to many Palestinians and observers across the world, it sounded like something else: a blueprint to erase what remains of Gaza’s sovereignty. What was initially discussed with the Arab states as a cooperative humanitarian initiative was, by the time of its release, cleverly reshaped. It is rewritten to preserve occupation under a new label.

From Arab Consensus to American Control

Early drafts of a postwar Gaza plan were reportedly framed through consultations among Arab and Muslim nations. They emphasized three principles: Palestinian self-rule, unrestricted humanitarian access, and reconstruction without foreign trusteeship. Yet as negotiations evolved, the plan was absorbed by U.S. diplomacy and redrafted in a way that aligned with Israeli conditions rather than Arab consensus. Several diplomats confirmed that Washington’s version quietly removed any reference to Palestinian sovereignty, replacing it with phrases like “transitional governance” and “security oversight.”

Even before it was officially unveiled, Reuters reported growing unease among Arab delegations, who complained that the new text ignored their agreed-upon points and reflected Israel’s security agenda. Pakistan’s foreign minister stated openly that “Trump’s 20-Point Gaza Plan is not our plan.” The shift marked more than a diplomatic re-edit as it exposed the power imbalance shaping Gaza’s future.

The 20 Points: Promises and Omissions

Publicly, Trump’s 20-Point Gaza Plan claims to rest on four pillars: ceasefire, hostage release, reconstruction, and demilitarization, yet its deeper clauses reveal troubling gaps. There is no guarantee of Palestinian sovereignty, no timeline for Israeli withdrawal, and no provision for international accountability. Instead, it envisions Gaza’s future under external trusteeship, with reconstruction funds controlled by a multinational board led by Washington and oversight committees dominated by Israel and allied states.

Several points speak of creating “safe redevelopment corridors” and “security zones,” terms human rights experts warn could mask forced relocations and demographic engineering. The plan further ties aid to behavior clauses, conditions governance on foreign approval, and places border control under “temporary supervision,” a phrase that critics fear means indefinite control. Amnesty International cautioned that “reconstruction must not become a pretext for displacement or collective punishment.”

In essence, while the plan’s language of peace and rebuilding appeals to diplomacy, its structure embeds dependency and control. To rebuild Gaza without granting it freedom is, as one Palestinian analyst put it, “to rebuild the prison walls, just higher and cleaner.”

The Human Cost Hidden Behind Diplomacy

Behind every clause of this plan lies a humanitarian catastrophe. The World Health Organization confirms that more than half a million people in Gaza face famine-level hunger, and over 360 have already died from malnutrition. The UN’s humanitarian office says 80% of Gaza’s population now depends on aid that Israel continues to restrict. In this reality, talk of “redevelopment corridors” rings hollow. Gaza does not need trusteeship—it needs food, medicine, and an end to the siege.

On the streets of Rafah and Deir al-Balah, survivors of months of bombardment heard the plan’s announcement with disbelief. “They speak of building new homes,” one displaced teacher told a reporter, “but they won’t even let cement cross the border.” Another woman asked, “Who gives them the right to plan our lives while we bury our dead?” These voices reveal the heart of Gaza’s objection: no document signed abroad can substitute for the will of its people.

Resistance and Rejection

Hamas’s initial response to the plan was mixed. The group welcomed references to reconstruction and aid delivery but rejected disarmament and external trusteeship. “No peace built on surrender will last,” its spokesman said. Across Palestinian civil society, activists dismissed the plan as “occupation repackaged.” Hashtags like #NoTrusteeship and #GazaIsNotForSale flooded social media, uniting Gazans and diaspora voices in digital defiance.

Former U.S. diplomat Robert Malley, writing for Le Monde, described the plan as “a maze of ambiguities and potential pitfalls.” His analysis noted that the proposal’s vagueness is deliberate—creating space for powerful states to interpret its clauses to their advantage. It is a familiar strategy: promise reconstruction while ensuring dependency.

Reactions among Arab and Muslim nations were cautious and divided. The Arab League issued a restrained statement calling for further review, while countries like Algeria, Iran, and Pakistan warned that any plan lacking Palestinian representation was unacceptable. Meanwhile, Western governments praised the proposal as a “bold step toward stability.” For Gazans, these words offered little comfort. They have seen such language before in the Oslo Accords, the Road Map, and countless other documents that delivered control, not liberation.

International law offers a clear measure. The plan’s idea of trusteeship contradicts the principle of self-determination guaranteed by the UN Charter and multiple General Assembly resolutions. Legal scholars argue that placing Gaza under external administration without consent would constitute a new form of occupation. The International Court of Justice’s 2024 advisory opinion warned that “peace agreements cannot validate the continuation of unlawful control.” Trump’s plan, critics say, does precisely that.

What True Peace Would Look Like

A genuine peace framework would begin not with political engineering but with justice. It would:

  • End the blockade entirely, allowing Gaza to trade and rebuild freely.
  • Place reconstruction under Palestinian-led management, not foreign trusteeship.
  • Hold accountable those responsible for war crimes and the starvation policy.
  • Guarantee the right of return and compensation for the displaced.
  • Empower Gaza’s people to elect their own representatives without external approval.

Anything less is not peace but an administrative occupation.

The Moral and Legal Test for the World

The 20-Point Plan is not a diplomatic breakthrough but a moral test. To accept it as written would mean endorsing a future where Gaza remains controlled by the same forces that destroyed it. It would normalize collective punishment under the banner of reform. And it would bury the core demand that Palestinians have made for decades: the right to decide their destiny.

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and UN experts have all warned that Gaza’s crisis cannot be resolved through imposed governance. The path forward must restore dignity, not dependency. Yet, while the world debates corridors and committees, Gaza’s hospitals run without light, and its children die nameless in the dark.

The Bottom Line

Trump’s 20-Point Gaza Plan may speak the language of peace, but its structure carries the logic of control. For Gaza, peace cannot be built by those who silence its voice. True reconstruction will not come from Washington or Tel Aviv, but it will rise from the streets of Khan Yunis and the refugee camps that still believe in freedom.

The people of Gaza do not reject peace but subjugation disguised as diplomacy. Their message to the world remains clear: “We will rebuild, but on our own terms.” And until that right is honored, no plan, however polished, can claim the name of peace.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Deportation

Deportation as a Weapon: New Frontline of Palestinian Rights in the US

Published

on

Deportation-as-a-Weapon

The first time Mahmoud Khalil’s name began circulating beyond activist circles, it was not because of a speech or a protest, but due to a legal notice – a deportation order.

In the 21st century, it is appalling to see people’s right to life and other basic human rights being ridiculed. In the larger picture, the deportation drive is a hidden assault on whoever talks about the rights of the Palestinians in the United States.

A Case That Refused to Stay Quiet

Mahmoud Khalil is a Palestinian activist based in the United States. His work has focused on raising awareness about Gaza and advocating for Palestinian rights through public events and campus-linked activism.

Since Israel is being largely supported in the West, anyone who talks about the fundamental rights of the people of Gaza is dealt with extreme brutality. In this context, the Federal agencies of the United States moved forward with his deportation proceedings even though he is a permanent American citizen and married to a US citizen too.

It is not about Mahmoud Khalil or any individual but about a greater cause that is to allow the freedom of speech, expression, and association.

Palestinian Rights and the Mayor of New York

Zohran Mamdani, a prominent elected official, publicly defended Khalil, arguing that deportation should not be used as a tool against political expression. In doing so, Mamdani shifted the conversation from immigration procedure to constitutional principle.

His message remains clear: “advocacy for Palestinian rights is not a crime, and deportation should not become a backdoor method of punishing dissent.”

The response was swift, and the supporters praised the stance as a rare act of political courage. Critics accused Mamdani of shielding extremism. Media coverage intensified, and Khalil’s case became symbolic.

People are dying in Gaza due to bombings, famine, poor health, and absolutely no sense of security. In this environment, instead of allowing the people of Gaza to breathe, it is inhumane that their voices are being silenced.

Deportation and the Chilling Effect

Immigration law experts note that deportation proceedings are uniquely powerful. Unlike criminal trials, they operate in a separate legal universe—one with fewer protections, lower evidentiary thresholds, and limited public scrutiny.

For activists who are students, workers, or asylum-seekers, this vulnerability is well understood.

Civil rights groups have documented a growing sense of fear among foreign-born activists involved in Palestine-related advocacy. Some report withdrawing from public organizing, while others avoid protests altogether, worried that visibility could trigger legal consequences unrelated to their conduct.

Since the escalation of the Gaza war, US campuses have seen a surge in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. These demonstrations came alongside suspensions, surveillance concerns, and disciplinary actions. Khalil’s case sits squarely within this context.

A Broader Pattern Takes Shape

Across the US, Palestinian and pro-Palestinian activists, especially those without citizenship, describe increased scrutiny. Immigration status has become a pressure point, a way to narrow the space for political engagement without directly confronting free speech protections.

Moreover, some legal scholars point out that while citizens may face arrest or prosecution for protest-related activity, non-citizens face an additional, existential risk: expulsion.

This asymmetry reshapes activism. Ultimately, it creates two classes of dissent—those who can speak and those who must calculate the cost of every word.

Where the World is Heading

The world conscience would definitely be questioned in the annals of history when the chapter of Palestine comes. The world is getting divided among the nations that support the Palestinian right to existence and the other ones that do not support this very basic human right.

In his book, “On Palestine”, Ilan Pappe and Noam Chomsky clearly described the atrocities by Israel and the ground-breaking support it gets from the West. Peppe even claimed that there is ethnic cleansing being done in Palestine by Israel.

In fact, the current deportation trends are about the advocacy tied to Palestine. The question is how a responsible democracy responds when uncomfortable voices refuse to appear.

As one civil liberties advocate put it: “You don’t have to win every case to change the climate. You just have to make people afraid.”

Ultimately, this is about changing the political climate and making people afraid of speaking against Israel or in favor of Palestine. The outcome of Khalil’s case remains uncertain. However, the signals it sends to activists, institutions, and the state are already unmistakable.

In today’s world, speaking about Gaza can follow you far beyond the protest!

Continue Reading

Featured

Life Inside Gaza’s Tents: Cold Nights, Illness, and Endless Waiting

Published

on

Life-Inside-Gazas-Tents

Before sunrise, the camp is already awake. A woman steps carefully between puddles that did not exist the night before. To add more to the inhumane conditions, rainwater has mixed with waste and ash, turning the ground into a thin, foul-smelling slurry. She is carrying two empty containers, hoping the water point has not run dry again today.

Nearby, a child coughs, a persistent dry cough that has become common in the tents since winter set in. This is just a glimpse of life now for hundreds of Palestinians in Gaza. This is not a story of a temporary stop, nor of an emergency night or two, but of a prolonged existence inside fabric shelters that were never meant to last months.

According to the United Nations, around 1.7 million people remain displaced across Gaza. Not only that, a large share of them is living in tents, plastic shelters, or overcrowded informal sites. These sites are often pitched on rubble, farmland, or roadsides. The ceasefire might have changed the tempo of the war but for those in the camps, it did not restore normal life at all.

From Homes to Tents

Entire neighborhoods across Gaza have been flattened or rendered uninhabitable. As per the UN satellite assessments, well over half of Gaza’s housing stock has been damaged or completely destroyed, leaving families with no realistic option to return.

Tents were supposed to be temporary, but as the atrocities continue to inflict the people of Gaza, now these are standing for months.

Moreover, most of those tents offer no insulation. At night, cold air moves freely through torn seams. During rain, water pools inside, soaking thin mattresses and blankets. When storms hit, some tents collapse entirely, forcing families to crowd into neighboring shelters or even sleep outdoors until replacements arrive — if they arrive at all.

These are not the conditions for life to even exist. Aid agencies describe these sites less as camps and more as open-air holding zones, where survival depends on irregular deliveries of water, food, and fuel.

Smoke, Plastic, and the Air People Breathe

With fuel scarce and electricity almost nonexistent, many families burn whatever they can find to keep warm or cook food. Plastic packaging, scraps of rubber, and mixed waste are common substitutes.

The smoke hangs low in the evenings. Burning plastic releases toxic fumes that aggravate respiratory problems, especially among children and older people. A few clinics, which are fortunately left, operating inside or near displacement sites report rising cases of persistent coughs, chest infections, and eye irritation, conditions that are difficult to treat in overcrowded settings with limited medicine.

For many families, the choice is brutal. Either to breathe toxic smoke or to endure freezing nights. This is like a Hobson’s choice for them to live in these conditions.

Childhood on Hold

Children make up nearly half of Gaza’s population, and many are growing up almost entirely inside tents.

There is no school routine, no playground, and no sense of safety after dark. Parents describe children waking at night from cold, fear, or hunger. It is not surprising that the aid workers are noting signs of trauma, including withdrawal, bed-wetting, sudden aggression, and silence.

Mental health professionals working with humanitarian teams have warned that prolonged displacement, especially under such harsh conditions, can leave long-term psychological scars. On the other hand, counselling services are scarce, and survival needs usually come first.

For many children, days pass without structure. Time is measured not by lessons or play, but by queues for water, food distributions, and the arrival, or absence, of aid trucks.

Rain, Sewage, and the Winter Toll

The appalling living conditions were already very severe, but in the winter, it makes them tenfold, turning shelters into hazards.

Heavy rainfall has flooded multiple displacement sites, washing sewage into living areas and soaking tents beyond repair. In some camps, families have raised bedding on bricks or broken furniture in an attempt to stay dry.

Humanitarian reports, including those from Transparency International, document tents collapsing under wind and rain, forcing repeated displacement even within camps. Each move strips families of what little stability they have managed to create.

Cold weather has compounded illness. Without proper clothing, heating, or medical care, respiratory infections have become harder to manage. Clinics, already overstretched, struggle to cope with demand.

A Ceasefire Without a Way Home

For people living in tents, the ceasefire did not bring clarity. Some families hoped it would mean a return home. Instead, many areas remain inaccessible, unsafe, or destroyed. In some cases, new evacuation orders have continued, forcing further movement even after the fighting slowed.

Aid workers say uncertainty is one of the heaviest burdens. Families do not know whether to rebuild makeshift shelters, prepare to move again, or wait for instructions that may never come.

“We Are Still Here”

In the camps, people talk less about politics and more about endurance and survival.

They talk about missing ordinary things, like doors that lock, floors that are dry, and nights without smoke. They talk about children growing up too fast, about illness that lingers, about days that blend into each other.

One displaced man summed it up simply: “We are alive, but this is not living.”

In a nutshell, survival continues, measured in blankets, liters of water, and the hope that tomorrow will bring something other than uncertainty to breathe.

Continue Reading

Featured

Board of Peace Explained: New Global Peace Architecture or Another Power Play?

Published

on

Board-of-Peace-Explained-New-Global-Peace-Architecture-or-Another-Power-Play

This is not just about a region in this world where human rights are not given, and people are being killed. It is about humanity, life, and the very foundations of values that humans are living with. When Gaza is discussed today, it is rarely in the language of rights. It is discussed as a problem to be solved, a territory to be stabilized, and a population to be administered.

The announcement of a new international “Board of Peace” fits neatly into this pattern. Presented as a bold initiative to guide Gaza out of conflict and into reconstruction, the Board of Peace has been framed by its sponsors as innovative, inclusive, and forward-looking. Yet for Palestinians, the announcement raises an older, still unresolved question: Who decides Gaza’s future, and on what authority?

What Is the Board of Peace?

The Board of Peace was announced by US President Donald Trump as part of a broader Phase Two Gaza plan, marking a shift from ceasefire management to post-genocide governance and reconstruction.

According to official descriptions, the board is meant to:

  • Oversee Gaza’s political transition
  • Coordinate reconstruction funding and investment
  • Provide international supervision during a “transitional” period

Trump declared himself chair of the board and described it as a high-level body composed of political leaders, financial figures, and diplomatic actors. Unlike the United Nations, the board has no clear treaty basis, no General Assembly mandate, and no defined accountability mechanism.

It is powerful not because it is formal, but because it is backed by money, political leverage, and security control.

Who is on the Board?

The individuals named or referenced in connection with the Board of Peace are not neutral facilitators.

The board’s executive circle includes:

  • Marco Rubio, US Senator and the Secretary of State
  • Tony Blair, former UK prime minister
  • Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and former Middle East envoy
  • Steve Witkoff, US real estate magnate and political donor
  • Ajay Banga, President of the World Bank

These are figures associated with Western political power, financial institutions, and security-centric diplomacy. None are elected Palestinian representatives. None comes from Gaza. The imbalance is structural, not incidental.

Which Countries Were Invited?

One of the board’s defining features is its attempt to project global legitimacy through invited state participation.

According to credible sources, Trump sent invitations to around 60 world leaders. Those explicitly named in reporting include:

  • Turkey (President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan)
  • Egypt (President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi)
  • Canada (Prime Minister Mark Carney)
  • Argentina (President Javier Milei)

Moreover, some diplomatic sources also indicate the list includes:

  • Britain
  • Germany
  • Italy
  • Morocco
  • Indonesia
  • Australia

The Palestinian Face of the Plan: Who Is Ali Shaath?

To provide the plan with Palestinian leadership, the US has backed Ali Shaath as head of the transitional Palestinian committee that will administer Gaza’s civil affairs under the Board of Peace.

Shaath’s profile is central to understanding how this governance model is being sold.

Here is a quick overview of Ali Shaath:

  • He was born in 1958 in Khan Younis
  • He is a civil engineer with a PhD from Queen’s University Belfast
  • He previously served as deputy minister of planning in the Palestinian Authority
  • He has worked on industrial zone projects in both Gaza and the West Bank

Shaath has spoken publicly about the scale of Gaza’s destruction, estimating around 68 million tons of rubble, much of it contaminated with unexploded ordnance. He has suggested that clearing debris could take three years, with full recovery achievable in seven years. It seems to be a far more optimistic timeline than UN estimates, which warn that rebuilding could extend beyond 2040.

Politically, Shaath has been described as acceptable to both Hamas and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, precisely because he is positioned as a technocrat rather than a political leader. However, it is yet to be observed how he would work with the other members.

Governance Without Sovereignty

The Palestinian committee, chaired by Shaath, has issued a mission statement pledging to restore services, rebuild infrastructure, and stabilize daily life in Gaza.

The committee describes its work as “rooted in peace” and focused on technocratic administration rather than politics.

Yet the committee:

  • Controls no borders
  • Commands no security forces
  • Regulates no airspace or coastline
  • Has no electoral mandate

It governs without power, while power remains in external hands.

When it comes to the reaction of the people of Gaza, they showed mixed feelings of skepticism over hope. Some Palestinians express cautious hope that any plan might bring electricity, water, and an end to constant displacement. Others see the Board of Peace as another externally designed structure that manages Gaza without addressing the occupation.

Peace Architecture or Power Management?

The Board of Peace is being presented as an innovation. However, history offers a cautionary lens.

Temporary governance structures in occupied or post-conflict territories have a habit of becoming permanent. Reconstruction becomes conditional. Aid becomes leverage. Administration replaces self-determination.

In a nutshell, the Board of Peace asks the world to believe that stability can precede justice, and that governance can substitute for freedom.

For Palestinians, the unanswered question is simpler and older:

If Gaza’s future is designed in Washington, financed in global capitals, and overseen by external boards—where does Palestinian self-determination actually begin?

Until that question is addressed, the Board of Peace risks becoming not a new architecture for peace, but another structure built on the same imbalance that has kept Gaza unfree for decades.

Peace cannot be outsourced, and a people cannot be rebuilt while being brutally ruled.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending