Gaza

Just when you thought prospects for the future of the Gaza Strip could not get any bleaker, United States President Donald Trump has unveiled his 20-point “peace plan” for the Palestinian territory, starring himself as the chair of a “Board of Peace” that will serve as a transitional government in the enclave. This from the man who has been actively aiding and abetting Israel’s genocide of Palestinians since January, when he took over the US presidency from former honorary genocidaire Joe Biden.

But that is not all. Also on board for the “Board of Peace” is former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who will reportedly play a significant governing role in Gaza’s proposed makeover. To be sure, importing a Sir Tony Blair from the United Kingdom to oversee an enclave of Palestinians smacks rather hard of colonialism in a region that is already quite familiar with the phenomenon.

And yet the region is also already quite familiar with Blair himself, owing in particular to his notorious performance during the 2003 war on Iraq, led by his buddy and then-chief of the so-called war on terror, George W Bush. Swearing by the false allegations of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Blair steered the UK into a war that ultimately killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, earning him a most deserved reputation as a war criminal.

In other words, he is not a guy who should under any circumstances turn up on a “Board of Peace”.

And while Bush would subsequently retire to a quiet life of painting dogs and portraits of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Blair continued to make a name for himself as the man the Middle East just cannot get rid of – and to make a pretty penny while at it.

After resigning as prime minister in 2007, Blair was immediately reincarnated as Middle East envoy for the “Quartet” of international powers – representing the US, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations – that is ostensibly forever striving to resolve the Israel-Palestine issue.

But in this case, too, the appointment of an envoy with close relations to Israel – the unquestionable aggressor to the “conflict” – pretty much obviated any advancement in the direction of “peace”.

Furthermore, Blair’s diplomatic activity conveniently overlapped with an array of highly lucrative business dealings in the region, from providing paid advice to Arab governments to signing on as a part-time senior adviser in 2008 with the US investment bank JP Morgan. For the latter post, Blair was said to be compensated in excess of $1m per year.

As Francis Beckett, coauthor of Blair Inc: The Man Behind the Mask, told Al Jazeera in 2016 – the year after Blair stepped down as Quartet envoy – “the difficulty was that when he went to meetings in the Middle East, nobody knew which Tony Blair they were seeing – whether it was Tony Blair the Quartet envoy or Tony Blair the patron of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation or Tony Blair the principal of the consultancy firm Tony Blair Associates”.

But, hey, the point of conflicts of interest is that they pay off.

In a 2013 article for the Journal of Palestine Studies, award-winning journalist Jonathan Cook noted that, while Blair had little to show in terms of “achievements” as Quartet representative, he liked to “trumpet one in particular: his success in 2009 in securing radio frequencies from Israel to allow the creation of a second Palestinian cell phone operator, Wataniya Mobile, in the West Bank”.

There was a catch, however. As Cook details, Israel released the frequencies in exchange for an agreement from the Palestinian leadership to drop the issue at the UN of Israeli war crimes committed during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, which was launched in December 2008 and killed some 1,400 Palestinians in a matter of 22 days.

And what do you know? “Blair had private business interests in negotiating the deal,” and it so happened that “not only Wataniya but also JP Morgan stood to profit massively from the opening up of the West Bank’s airwaves.”

Now, it is hardly an exaggeration to assume that Blair will seek to capitalise on his impending governorship of Gaza, as well, as there are no doubt plenty of opportunities for the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change in, you know, changing the world to definitively screw over the Palestinians.

One focus of Trump’s 20-point plan, incidentally, is the “many thoughtful investment proposals and exciting development ideas … crafted by well-meaning international groups” that will magically produce “hope for future Gaza”. After all, why should Palestinians care about having a state and not being perennially massacred by Israel when they can have capitalism and the tyranny of foreign investors instead?

And the face of that tyranny may well be Blair, whose synonymousness with the slaughter of civilians in the Middle East has not prevented him from being once again tapped as a regional peacemaker.

This is not to say that Blair has no fans aside from Trump and the Israelis. For example, New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman, a fellow Orientalist and Iraq war cheerleader, once praised Blair as “one of the most important British prime ministers ever” for having decided to “throw in Britain’s lot with President Bush on the Iraq war”, thereby not only defying “the overwhelming antiwar sentiment of his own party, but public opinion in Britain generally”.

There was, it seemed, no end to Friedman’s admiration for Blair’s antidemocratic stoicism: “He had no real support group to fall back on. I’m not even sure his wife supported him on the Iraq war. (I know the feeling!)”

Now, as Gaza’s fate continues to hang at the mercy of Blair and other international war criminals, perhaps his wife should suggest that he take up painting instead.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

A Gaza-bound aid flotilla is currently sailing toward the enclave, entering a high-risk zone where previous missions have faced attacks and interceptions.

On Wednesday, Israel’s public broadcaster Kan reported that the Israeli military is preparing to “take control” of the flotilla with naval commandos and warships. Israel wont tow all 50 vessels however and will sink some at sea, Kan said.

Israel intends to detain hundreds of activists on naval ships, question them then deport them via the port of Ashdod.

The Global Sumud Flotilla, which set sail from Spain on August 31, is the largest maritime mission to Gaza to date. It brings together more than 50 ships and delegations from at least 44 countries, as part of an international effort to challenge Israel’s naval blockade and deliver aid to Gaza.

The map below shows the latest location:

So, is Israel entitled to board ships that are in international waters? The answer is no, here’s how territorial and international waters work.

Which waters does a country control?

Coastal countries control the waters closest to their shores, called territorial waters, which extend 12 nautical miles (22km) from the coast. In this zone, the state has full sovereignty, just like over its land.

Beyond that, they have rights over up to 200 nautical miles (370 km) of ocean, including the water and seafloor. This area is called the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). In the EEZ, countries can regulate activities such as fishing, mining, drilling, and other energy projects, while still allowing other countries freedom of navigation.

France has the largest EEZ, covering approximately 10.7 million square kilometres (4.2 million sq miles), thanks to its overseas territories. It is followed by the US, Australia, Russia, and the UK.

Where are international waters?

Covering about 64 percent of the ocean, the high seas lie beyond any country’s territorial waters and economic zones and are not controlled by a single state, with their use governed by international agreements.

What are the laws of the high seas?

The laws of the high seas are governed by the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It stipulates that all states can enjoy freedom of movement of ships in the high seas and aircraft can fly freely.

It also allows the laying of subsea cables and pipelines, as well as fishing, scientific research and the construction of islands. All three of which are subject to international agreements and laws.

Ships that are on the high seas are subject to the jurisdiction of the flag they fly, except those conducting piracy and other unauthorised activities.

Israel has attacked previous flotillas in international waters

Several Freedom Flotilla vessels have attempted to break the blockade of Gaza since 2010. All were intercepted or attacked by Israel, mostly in international waters where it has no territorial rights.

The most deadly occurred on May 31, 2010, when Israeli commandos raided the Mavi Marmara in international waters. The commandos killed 10 activists, most of them Turkish, and injured dozens more, sparking global outrage and severely straining Israel-Turkiye relations.

The map below shows the approximate locations where prominent flotillas were stopped, some encountering deadly Israeli forces.

In 2024, amid ongoing flotilla missions delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza, UN experts stated that: “The Freedom Flotilla has the right of free passage in international waters, and Israel must not interfere with its freedom of navigation, long recognised under international law.”

The Sumud Flotilla had been sailing through international waters and into Palestinian territorial waters, where it has the legal right to navigate and deliver humanitarian aid.

According to Stephen Cotton, the General Secretary of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF), representing more than 16.5 million transport workers globally, “The law of the sea is clear: attacking or seizing non-violent, humanitarian vessels in international waters is illegal and unacceptable.”

“Such actions endanger lives and undermine the basic principles that keep the seas safe for all. This is not only about seafarers, it’s about the safety of everyone at sea, whether on a commercial ship, a humanitarian vessel, or a fishing boat. States cannot pick and choose when to respect international law. The seas must not be turned into a theatre of war.”  Cotton told Al Jazeera.

According to the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, the mission is not only lawful but also protected under a comprehensive set of international legal instruments. Including:

• The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) – Guarantees freedom of navigation on the high seas
• San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea – Prohibits blockades that cause starvation or disproportionate suffering and forbids the targeting of neutral humanitarian missions
• UN Security Council Resolutions 2720 and 2728 – These binding instruments demand unimpeded humanitarian access and the removal of all barriers to aid delivery
• Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide – Includes the prevention of acts deliberately endangering civilians
• Fourth Geneva Convention – Imposes an obligation to permit the free passage of humanitarian aid and prohibit interference with relief operations and the targeting of civilian infrastructure
• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – Criminalises the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and willful obstruction of humanitarian aid.

BOSTON — The Trump administration violated the Constitution when it targeted non-U.S. citizens for deportation solely for supporting Palestinians and criticizing Israel, a federal judged said Tuesday in a scathing ruling directly and sharply criticizing President Trump and his policies as serious threats to free speech.

U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston agreed with several university associations that the policy they described as ideological deportation violates the 1st Amendment as well as the Administrative Procedure Act, a law governing how federal agencies develop and issue regulations. Young also found the policy was “arbitrary or capricious because it reverses prior policy without reasoned explanation.”

“This case — perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court — squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in [the] United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally ‘yes, they do,’” Young, a nominee of Republican President Reagan, wrote.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Plaintiffs in the case welcomed the ruling.

“The Trump administration’s attempt to deport students for their political views is an assault on the Constitution and a betrayal of American values,” said Todd Wolfson, president of the American Assn. of University Professors union. “This trial exposed their true aim: to intimidate and silence anyone who dares oppose them. If we fail to fight back, Trump’s thought police won’t stop at pro-Palestinian voices—they will come for anyone who speaks out.”

The ruling came after a trial during which lawyers for the associations presented witnesses who testified that the Trump administration had launched a coordinated effort to target students and scholars who had criticized Israel or showed sympathy for Palestinians.

“Not since the McCarthy era have immigrants been the target of such intense repression for lawful political speech,” Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, told the court. “The policy creates a cloud of fear over university communities, and it is at war with the First Amendment.”

The student detentions, primarily on the East Coast, had caused widespread concern at California universities, which host the largest international student population in the nation and were home to major pro-Palestinian encampments in 2024. At UCLA, faculty earlier this year set up a 24-hour hotline for students who feared being potentially detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement — although there were no high-profile targeted removals of international student activists.

In separate actions this year, the government also temporarily revoked visas and immigration statuses for students across the UC system and at other U.S. campuses based on minor violations such as traffic tickets. Revocations were reversed nationwide after a federal suit was filed.

In the Boston case, lawyers for the Trump administration put up witnesses who testified there was no ideological deportation policy as the plaintiffs contended.

“There is no policy to revoke visas on the basis of protected speech,” Victoria Santora told the court. “The evidence presented at this trial will show that plaintiffs are challenging nothing more than government enforcement of immigration laws.”

John Armstrong, the senior bureau official in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, testified that visa revocations were based on long-standing immigration law. Armstrong acknowledged he played a role in the visa revocation of several high-profile activists, including Rumeysa Ozturk and Mahmoud Khalil, and was shown memos endorsing their removal.

Armstrong also insisted that visa revocations were not based on protected speech and rejected accusations that there was a policy of targeting someone for their ideology.

One witness testified that the campaign targeted more than 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters. Out of the 5,000 names reviewed, investigators wrote reports on about 200 who had potentially violated U.S. law, Peter Hatch of ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations unit testified. Until this year, Hatch said, he could not recall a student protester being referred for a visa revocation.

Among the report subjects was Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate Khalil, who was released last month after 104 days in federal immigration detention. Khalil has become a symbol of Trump’s clampdown on the protests.

Another was Tufts University student Ozturk, who was released in May from six weeks in detention after being arrested on a suburban Boston street. She said she was illegally detained after an op-ed she co-wrote last year criticizing her school’s response to the war in Gaza.

Casey writes for the Associated Press. Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this report.

Details are key in any peace agreement. Donald Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza is notably lacking in them. Al Jazeera’s Virginia Pietromarchi explains.

The Gaza ceasefire proposal presented by US President Donald Trump, and which Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he has accepted, may not deliver the results Palestinians have long hoped for, analysts tell Al Jazeera.

While people on the ground would be infinitely relieved by a halt in Israel’s vicious bombardment that has killed at least 66,055 people and wounded 168,346 since October 2023, the 20-point Trump plan contains almost nothing else positive for the people of Palestine, analysts say.

“Ending the genocide is tied to this very colonial approach in which Israel – the party that has carried out the genocide –  and the US – who has funded it – are the ones who get to decide the future of the people against whom they’re committing genocide,” Palestinian lawyer and analyst Diana Buttu, who was a legal adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team from 2000 to 2005, said

“If you read the agreement itself, there are no guarantees provided to the Palestinians, not a single guarantee,” she added.

“All guarantees are provided to the Israelis.”

Focus on Gaza, but no clarity

Under the plan, fighting in Gaza would cease, captives from Israel who are held in Gaza – alive or dead – would be returned, in return for hundreds of living Palestinians taken by Israel, as well as the remains of hundreds who have died.

Then, Hamas is required to give up control over the Gaza Strip to the “Board of Peace”, an international transitional administration chaired by Trump, with members including Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Hamas members who promise “peaceful coexistence” and disarmament will be granted amnesty. Others “who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries”.

Aid deliveries would resume, Israeli troops would allegedly withdraw after certain conditions are met, though it is unclear who would enforce their withdrawal, and an economic revitalisation plan would be developed by experts who created “thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East”.

Hamas has said it is currently deliberating on the plan.

Trump warned that if it rejects his offer, Israel would have free rein, with full US support, to take any action it sees fit in Gaza. Human rights organisations and scholars have already called Israel’s current actions in Gaza a genocide.

However, this leaves many questions unanswered, Muhannad Seloom, assistant professor at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, told Al Jazeera.

For example, while the Palestinian Authority (PA) is mentioned in the plan, there is no immediate role for it until it completes a reform programme composed of various proposals. While Trump listed his 2020 peace plan and the Saudi-French proposal, it’s unclear which reforms he specifically means. The PA has, in the past, been told it should reform its governance, deal with endemic corruption, change the education curriculum, and change the social welfare system that supports Palestinian prisoners’ families.

The PA has reformed the prisoners’ families’ payment programme, but that did not stop Secretary of State Marco Rubio from disregarding the changes and criticising the PA for an old policy, according to the Times of Israel.

What is clear to analysts is that the PA will have to satisfy Israel and the US that it has completed its reform process before it can rule Gaza, and with no clear goals, that could extend indefinitely.

Meanwhile, the plan says aid will be provided by the United Nations and the International Red Crescent, but does not mention whether the notorious Israeli and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which has led to more than 1,000 Palestinians killed waiting for aid, will be disbanded.

“It seems like a rushed agreement that will be worked on as they go along,” Seloom said.

What state is the state of Palestine in?

On September 21, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom recognised the state of Palestine. More European countries, including France and Portugal, followed suit shortly after.

Global leaders paid tribute to the “two-state solution”, despite analysts claiming that the act of recognition was largely a face-saving exercise.

The international community has often spoken of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, and the UN General Assembly voted to back a resolution aimed at reviving a two-state solution on September 12.

However, analysts argue that the term “two-state solution” has little relevance to the reality on the ground and that this plan makes the question more pressing: Even if Israel’s two-year-long genocidal campaign against Gaza is paused, realistically, what shape would the state of Palestine be in?

Often when discussing a Palestinian state, the territories envisioned include the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.

But those areas are increasingly splintered and isolated by Israeli policy. And illegal Israeli settlements mushroomed in the occupied West Bank, further shrinking any potential future Palestinian state, with international complicity.

This was true before October 2023, but actions like movement restrictions, land grabs, settlement expansions, settler and military violence, and home destructions have all accelerated since.

Before Israel’s war on Gaza, the Gaza Strip was the largest continuous stretch of Palestinian land, but people in Gaza could not go to the occupied West Bank and vice versa, while travel out of Palestine was a Herculean feat due to Israeli impediments.

Now, analysts worry this plan will further divide Gaza from the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem. It makes only one brief mention of a potential “credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood”, a pathway that is contingent on the vague PA reform program being “faithfully carried out”.

In light of the recent recognitions, analysts asked, what is left from which to fashion a Palestinian state?

“This is the million-dollar question,” Buttu said. “Everyone is recognising the state of Palestine as it is being erased, that’s the problem.”

Trump’s plan also leaves the Palestinians reliant on the goodwill of outside actors, including having no recourse if Israel does not withdraw from Gaza, as the plan says.

For his part, Netanyahu has repeatedly sworn to scupper any efforts at establishing a Palestinian state. A day before a UNGA vote that approved a resolution supporting the two-state solution, Netanyahu signed an agreement to move ahead with a settlement project to dissect the occupied West Bank and told supporters, “there will be no Palestinian state”.

Analysts believe the agreement relies on two things that have long been in short supply: Netanyahu’s goodwill and US guarantees that Israel will stick to the agreement.

Netanyahu’s history of undermining the peace process and entrenching the occupation has led analysts to doubt it will actually be implemented.

The agreement is “workable on paper”, according to Seloom,  but “from experience, there are so many details that are unclear.”

Palestinians negotiating an end to their own genocide

Palestinians have gone through this before with Israel.

The Oslo Accords, a pair of interim agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), laid what should have been the foundations for an eventual Palestinian state in the early and mid-’90s.

But little progress has been made in that direction since the second accord was signed in 1995. Instead, analysts say Israel has repeatedly undermined Palestine’s efforts to establish a state. And after years of Israel eroding Palestinians’ control over their own land and two years of the genocidal campaign in Gaza, the current situation appears even worse to analysts.

“This is worse than Oslo,” Buttu, who was a legal adviser at Oslo for the PLO, said. “At least in Oslo, there was a Palestinian voice.

“This is a removal of all Palestinian voices, and we’re back to the era when other people are speaking on our behalf.”

Trump met leaders of Arab and Islamic countries on September 23 to discuss his plan, but no Palestinian leaders.

Still, the US has laid the responsibility for ending Israel’s war on Gaza on the Palestinians themselves. Should Hamas not accept a deal that provides few guarantees to the Palestinian people, Israel’s genocidal war will continue and possibly even intensify.

“There’s a huge problem in that this genocide’s been going on for two years and … Palestinians are being forced to negotiate an end to their own genocide,” Buttu said.

‘They want to turn it into Trump resorts’. Palestinians in Gaza have been reacting to US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan to bring an end to Israel’s war on the enclave.

Qatar says that it is ‘truly optimistic’ about US President Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan and that the Hamas delegation is studying it ‘responsibly’.

Sept. 30 (UPI) — The Department of Health and Human Services has launched a process that could see Harvard University ineligible for federal funding, as the Trump administration escalates its fight with the Ivy League school.

The HHS’ Office for Civil Rights announced Monday it has referred Harvard to its office responsible for suspension and debarment decisions, where officials could decided to make the university ineligible for government contracts.

“OCR’s referral of Harvard for formal administrative proceedings reflects OCR’s commitment to safeguard both taxpayer investments and broader public interest,” Paula Stannard, the OCR director, said in a statement.

Harvard is one of several universities the Trump administration has targeted with punitive measures on allegations of failing to protect Jewish students amid pro-Palestine protests that erupted on campuses during the spring of 2024.

While the White House says the actions are to clamp down on anti-Semitism and protect Jewish students at the schools, critics say it is a tactic to suppress dissent and left-leaning ideology, as the Trump administration has pressured universities to adopt policies that amount to federal interference in hiring, admissions and curriculum.

Several of the schools have reached costly agreements to settle allegations with the administration, but Harvard is the most high-profile institution to fight back.

After the Trump administration froze more than $2 billion in government funding for the school, Harvard sued, with a judge earlier this month blocking the federal government’s attempt to withhold the money.

In support of its decision to refer Harvard to its OCR on Monday, HHS cited a June 30 notice it issued to the school stating it had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which found it had acted “with deliberate indifference toward discrimination and harassment against Jewish and Israeli students on its campus” amid Israel’s war in Gaza.

It also pointed to the OCR’s July 30 referral of Harvard to the Justice Department.

Harvard has 20 days to notify the OCR whether it will use its right to a formal administrative hearing, where an HHS administrative law judge will make a determination on whether it violated Title VI as alleged.

US President Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan has no guarantees to protect Palestinians but does guarantee a “long-term occupation by foreign troops,” says Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies.

The United States president’s 20-point ceasefire proposal in Gaza includes many ambiguous provisions that could be decisive for the future of Palestine and the region.

When presenting it in the White House on Monday, alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Donald Trump hailed the plan as historic. But figuring out the details for some of its elements will likely be a major challenge to its implementation.

Here are five unresolved issues with the proposal:

How will Gaza be governed?

The proposal envisions a “temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee” that would oversee the territory’s affairs. But it does not detail how the panel will be formed or who will select its members.

Moreover, the plan says that Trump and Toni Blair, the United Kingdom’s former prime minister, would lead a “board of peace” that would supervise the governing committee. But the roadmap does not explain the nature of the relationship between this board and the Palestinian committee, or at what level the day-to-day decisions would be made.

Will the Palestinian Authority be involved?

Trump’s plan says that the transitional authorities would take control of Gaza until “such time as the Palestinian Authority (PA) has completed its reform” programme and “can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza”. Yet, it remains unclear who would certify that the PA is ready to take over Gaza or what benchmarks must be met for the PA to handle the governance of the territory.

There are no timetables, just a vague pronouncement.

The proposal’s language additionally treats Gaza as an independent entity, not one that is part of Palestine, that must be unified with the rest of occupied Palestinian territory.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, who said he agreed to the proposal, has all but ruled out a return of the PA to Gaza.

“Gaza will be administered neither by Hamas, nor by the Palestinian Authority,” the Israeli prime minister said, standing alongside Trump.

How will the international force be formed?

The plan says that Gaza would be secured by “a temporary International Stabilisation Force”, but where would it come from, and what would its mandate be?

It is not clear what countries are willing to send troops to Gaza, or which ones would be acceptable under the plan.

The proposal also does not spell out the responsibilities and rules of engagement of the would-be peacekeepers.

Would they act as an army, police force, or observer force? Would they be tasked with taking on Hamas? Would they be able to fight Israeli troops to protect Palestinians?

When will Israel withdraw?

The proposal says that Israel would withdraw from Gaza “based on standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarisation”.

Again, the provision does not set a schedule for the Israeli withdrawal or clear standards for how and when it would happen.

Moreover, it says that Israel would hold onto a “security perimeter” in Gaza until the territory “is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat”.

But there is no word on who would ultimately decide when these conditions are met.

Is Palestinian statehood on the cards?

During his news conference on Monday, Trump said that several allies had “foolishly recognised the Palestinian state… but they’re really, I think, doing that because they’re very tired of what’s going on”.

The proposal makes a reference to the prospect of Palestinian statehood behind a thick wall of cloudiness, conditions and qualifiers.

“While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform programme is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognise as the aspiration of the Palestinian people,” it says.

So, Gaza development and PA “reforms” are set as conditions. And even then, discussions for a Palestinian state “may” be in place. It is not guaranteed.

Moreover, the proposal does not recognise the right to Palestinian statehood. Rather, it acknowledges statehood as something that Palestinians are seeking.

Like the other provisions, this one is also shrouded in vagueness and ambiguity.

United States President Donald Trump has proposed a 20-point peace plan to end the war in Gaza after holding talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who welcomed the proposal.

The new proposal, which calls for the disarmament of Hamas, has been welcomed by the Palestinian Authority (PA), which governs in the occupied West Bank, along with some regional Arab countries.

Hamas says that it is studying the US proposal “in good faith”, while the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) group says that the plan is a “recipe to blow up the region”.

Below are the reactions from regional and Western countries.

Palestine

The PA said that it welcomes the “sincere and tireless efforts to end the war on Gaza, and affirms its confidence in his ability to find a path to peace”.

“It reiterates its shared commitment to working with the United States, regional countries, and partners to end the war on Gaza through a comprehensive agreement that guarantees the delivery of adequate humanitarian aid to Gaza, the release of hostages and prisoners,” it said in a statement published by the Palestinian afa news agency.

It also called for the “establishment of mechanisms that protect the Palestinian people, ensure respect for the ceasefire and security for both parties, prevent the annexation of land and the displacement of Palestinians, halt unilateral actions that violate international law, release Palestinian tax funds, lead to a full Israeli withdrawal, and unify Palestinian land and institutions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem,” it said.

“It also ends the occupation and paves the way for a just peace based on the two-state solution, with an independent and sovereign State of Palestine living side by side with the State of Israel in security, peace, and good neighborliness, in accordance with international law,” the statement added.

The PIJ, a Palestinian armed group fighting alongside Hamas, called Trump’s plan a “recipe for continued aggression against the Palestinian people. Through this, Israel is attempting – via the United States – to impose what it could not achieve through war,” the group said in a statement.

“Therefore, we consider the American-Israeli declaration a formula for igniting the region.”

Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkiye UAE

The foreign ministers of the above countries released a joint statement welcoming Trump’s “sincere efforts to end the war in Gaza, and assert their confidence in his ability to find a path to peace”.

“Along these lines, the ministers welcome the announcement by President Trump regarding his proposal to end the war, rebuild Gaza, prevent the displacement of the Palestinian people and advance a comprehensive peace, as well as his announcement that he will not allow the annexation of the West Bank,” the statement added.

The statement went on to say that the countries are willing to work with the “United States to end the war in Gaza through a comprehensive deal that ensures unrestricted delivery of sufficient humanitarian aid to Gaza, no displacement of the Palestinians, the release of hostages, a security mechanism that guarantees the security of all sides, full Israeli withdrawal, rebuilds Gaza and creates a path for a just peace on the basis of the two state solution, under which Gaza is fully integrated with the West Bank in a Palestinian state in accordance with international law as key to achieving regional stability and security”.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Erdogan has hailed Trump for his efforts to broker a ceasefire.

“I commend US President Donald Trump’s efforts and leadership aimed at halting the bloodshed in Gaza and achieving a ceasefire,” Erdogan said in a statement.

He added that Turkiye would continue to support the diplomatic process, and is committed to helping establish “a just and lasting peace acceptable to all parties”.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif

Sharif posted on X that he welcomed the plan.

“I am also convinced that durable peace between the Palestinian people and Israel would be essential in bringing political stability and economic growth to the region,” he wrote.

“It is also my firm belief that President Trump is fully prepared to assist in whatever way necessary to make this extremely important and urgent understanding to become a reality.

“I laud President Trump’s leadership and the vital role played by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff in bringing an end to this war.”

He added: “I also strongly believe that the implementation of the two state proposal is essential to ensure lasting peace in the region.”

Israeli opposition politician Benny Gantz

Gantz said on X: “I laud President Trump’s extraordinary efforts to secure a hostage deal and safeguard Israeli security. Now is the time for initiative.”

“President Trump’s plan must be implemented, our hostages brought home, Israel’s operational freedom maintained, Hamas’ terror regime in Gaza replaced and moderate Arab States instated instead as I proposed a year and a half ago.

“We must not miss out on the opportunity to bring back the hostages, safeguard our security and catalyse a ‘Strategic Flip’ expanding the circles of regional normalisation,” he added.

France

“I expect Israel to engage resolutely on this basis. Hamas has no choice but to immediately release all hostages and follow this plan,” French President Emmanuel Macron said in a statement on X.

“These elements must pave the way for in-depth discussions with all relevant partners to build a lasting peace in the region, based on the two-state solution and on the principles endorsed by 142 UN member states, at the initiative of France and Saudi Arabia.”

United Kingdom

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “We call on all sides to come together and to work with the US Administration to finalise this agreement and bring it into reality. Hamas should now agree to the plan and end the misery, by laying down their arms and releasing all remaining hostages.”

The controversial former prime minister, Tony Blair, called the plan “bold and intelligent”, adding that it “can end the war, bring immediate relief to Gaza, the chance of a brighter and better future for its people, whilst ensuring Israel’s absolute and enduring security and the release of all hostages”.

Blair used to be an international envoy for the Middle East and was named by Trump as a member of his “board of peace” for Gaza.

Italy

Italy welcomed the proposal in a statement, saying that it “could mark a turning point, enabling a permanent cessation of hostilities, the immediate release of all hostages, and full and secure humanitarian access for the civilian population”.

Hamas, it added, “now has the opportunity to end it [war] by releasing the hostages, agreeing to have no role in Gaza’s future, and fully disarming”.

Spain

Spain, one of the most vocal critics of Israeli genocide in Gaza, has also welcomed Trump’s peace proposal.

“We must put an end to so much suffering,” Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said in a post on X.

“It is time for the violence to cease, for the immediate release of all the hostages to take place, and for humanitarian aid to be provided to the civilian population.

“The two-State solution, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only possible one.”

Palestinians in Gaza said the Trump proposal raises questions around implementation as Israeli attacks continued on Monday.

The move adds pressure on the UK government, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, which has been slammed over its stance on the Gaza war.

Members of the United Kingdom’s Labour Party have voted to recognise that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, in a move that increases pressure on the UK government to adopt the same position.

Delegates at Labour’s party conference approved an emergency motion backing the findings of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry, which earlier this month concluded that Israel “has committed genocide”. The vote was strongly supported by trade unions.

The decision contrasts with Labour leader and Prime Minister Keir Starmer, as well as senior ministers, who have argued that the question of genocide should be determined by international courts rather than politicians.

Israel is facing a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague in which it is accused of committing genocide.

Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy reaffirmed that stance following the conference vote.

“That means that it must be for the ICJ with their judges and judiciary, and for the ICC, to determine the issue of genocide in relation to the convention. It is not for politicians like me to do that,” he said, adding that he believed in “the rules-based order”.

THE self-proclaimed President of Peace is at it again, unveiling his 20-point peace plan for the Gaza war.

In typically understated fashion, Donald Trump declared his meeting with Israel’s Netanyahu a “historic day for humanity”.

3

3

3

And to be fair, convincing the hardman to sign up to a deal that could allow Hamas terrorists to walk free from their crimes was a big ask and an important moment.

Netanyahu is on board, with an oversight committee for Gaza lead by Mr Trump and an astonishing late career comeback from Tony Blair.

No Gazan will be forced out of their home, which was a major ask from European nations, while the cost of rebuilding the pummelled strip will be shared around the region.

On paper this looks like decent terms to end horrors.

But as we saw with Ukraine and Putin, these deals can come to nothing if one side doesn’t agree.

So now the world waits on Hamas to accept the terms.

They’ve said no before and collapsed talks and continued their butchery countless times.

But the given the Hamas leadership has been taken out three times now, and up to 20,000 dead fighters have been killed – the organisation is on its knees.

How long can they realistically keep fighting?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he supports US President Trump’s 20-point plan to end the war on Gaza. He emphasised his distrust of the Palestinian Authority, which under the plan would have no role in managing the strip until after a period of reform.

Sept. 29 (UPI) — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is meeting Monday at the White House with U.S. President Donald Trump to discuss a possible cease-fire in the war in Gaza.

Trump told NBC News he was optimistic about the outcome of the meeting and for the release of hostages held by Hamas.

“We’re doing very well. It looks like there is a really good chance for peace in the Middle East,” Trump told the outlet. “Everybody is on board. Everybody.”

One unnamed senior administration official who previously confirmed the meeting to Politico said that Trump believes Netanyahu is losing his hold on power.

“Bibi is on his own island,” one of the officials, using a nickname for Netanyahu, told Politico. “Not just from us, from his own government.”

Trump has a 21-point plan put together by son-in-law and former adviser Jared Kushner, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and special Steve Witkoff. An unnamed source familiar with the plan told Politico it includes no annexation of the West Bank, an international trusteeship for Gaza, and an Arab and Muslim international security force.

Israel has been under growing pressure from the international community to end the war in Gaza, which has spurred famine and a humanitarian crisis among the Palestinians.

The leaders of several countries, including Australia, Britain, Canada and France, formally recognized an independent Palestine on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly’s general debate in New York City last week. During Netanyahu’s speech before the assembly, dozens of representatives stood up and left the General Assembly Hall in protest.

Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof joins Talk to Al Jazeera at a pivotal moment for Europe and the Middle East. After his coalition collapsed, he reflects on leading the Netherlands through crises at home and abroad.

From the war in Gaza and sanctions on Israel to NATO, migration and United States President Donald Trump’s stance on Ukraine, Schoof gives rare insight into how the Netherlands navigates global fault lines. A politically unaffiliated leader and former intelligence chief, he speaks candidly about power, justice and Europe’s future.