In my previous piece on the Gaza meeting at the U.N., which U.S. President Donald Trump also attended, I closed by citing President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s remark, “We concluded a very, very productive, beautiful meeting. I am pleased; may its outcome be auspicious,” and suggested that it might signal “that in the coming days we could reach a cease-fire and see an acceleration of efforts regarding Gaza’s future.” Indeed, efforts to end the ongoing slaughter in Gaza and to seek a joint solution for the Palestinians have accelerated. The so-called Trump plan, a “package” of 21 items, was announced through the media. The announced plan is not a final road map. It appears that different countries have been working on and contributing alternative proposals and plans. In that context, negotiations are continuing in parallel. A great deal of diplomatic traffic, much of it outside public view and in some parts led by Türkiye, is also ongoing.
From the various statements released, it is clear that the backstage work and negotiations have prioritized securing a cease-fire in Gaza, stopping the civilian slaughter and getting humanitarian aid in as quickly as possible. But the ultimate goal of the comprehensive negotiations and the evolving plans is to establish an independent, sovereign Palestinian state with clearly defined borders. It goes without saying that reaching this goal will be a difficult process. Israel continues its war of genocide. It keeps condemning Palestinians in Gaza to systematic starvation. The occupation continues as it seeks to take the city completely under its control. It has not abandoned plans to annex the West Bank.
To date, the Trump administration has not pursued a determined policy to stop the two years of Israeli massacres. On the contrary, it has at times defended proposals amounting to ethnic cleansing, such as the forced displacement of more than 2 million Palestinians living in Gaza, or unrealistic schemes like a “Gaza Riviera.” The increasing isolation of the Netanyahu government in the world, many countries accusing Israel of committing genocide, and the recognition of Palestine by several states, including two permanent members of the Security Council, have all influenced Trump to change his stance and be persuaded of this new plan.
Moreover, as was expressed collectively to Trump once again at the recent U.N. meeting on Gaza, Arab and Islamic countries, despite all pressures, stood against the occupation of Gaza, the forced displacement of Palestinians and the annexation of the West Bank. Although there are disagreements on some issues, these states understand that accepting any plan other than a two-state solution would inflict irreparable shocks on the region’s future. Whether the path toward a Palestinian state is based on a “credible plan” will become clear once the agreement itself is crystallized. For now, a framework plan has emerged covering issues such as a phased Israeli withdrawal from Gaza after a cease-fire is reached, deployment of troops from regional states to guarantee security and questions over who would oversee passage and reconstruction and by what mechanisms.
Today, Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are meeting in Washington. Netanyahu will initially attempt to buy time by objecting to certain aspects of this plan. If he is forced to accept the plan, he will seek ways to sabotage implementation processes and invent pretexts. He will also try to stall the international community by threatening that the radical ministers in his cabinet will withdraw from the government, invoking his own political survival.
Therefore, the plan must clearly outline the effective sanctions the Netanyahu government would face if it fails to comply. It is significant that Trump has moved to this stage by abandoning unrealistic proposals such as “mass displacement” or a “Gaza Riviera.” For Trump to accept the proposed plans, he must use his influence over Israel. Let us remember: without uninterrupted U.S. support, Israel could not have sustained these massacres. Arab and Islamic countries must likewise not step back from diplomatic efforts and a resolute stance in favor of a two-state solution.
