By Qamar Bashir
In recent days, Israel has launched another devastating assault on the Gaza Strip, killing more than 40 civilians and wounding dozens. The attack, which Israeli officials claim was a response to the killing of two of its soldiers by Hamas, has reignited international outrage and raised urgent questions about the fate of President Donald Trump’s 21-point Middle East peace plan. Many observers believe that this assault, like the wars before it, was less a response to provocation and more an attempt to derail the peace framework that could constrain Israel’s territorial ambitions.
In an urgent diplomatic push, President Trump dispatched Vice President J.D. Vance to Israel to secure the government’s commitment to at least the first stage of the plan. At a joint press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the contrast between Washington’s tone and Jerusalem’s defiance was striking. Throughout the entire event, Netanyahu avoided any reference to the peace plan or to Israel’s obligations under it. Vice President Vance, on the other hand, stressed that the plan would allow international agencies to feed the starving population of Gaza, rebuild shattered infrastructure, and ensure security guarantees for both Israelis and Palestinians.
In fact, this peace plan has effectively neutralized Israel’s long-term objectives and reset the situation to zero. It has stopped Israel from achieving its ultimate ambition—not merely the destruction of Gaza and the West Bank, but the complete occupation and denial of the Palestinian right to statehood and self-determination. Israel had sought to permanently expel Palestinians under the pretext of a Hamas-led war, using Hamas as a convenient scapegoat to justify atrocities, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and the transformation of Gaza into a slaughterhouse.
However, all of that—the killings, the political maneuvering, the massive financial and military investment, and the loss of soft power, credibility, and global image—has now gone in vain. This peace plan has practically reversed the gains Israel had made over the last three years, despite the enormous resources spent on sustaining its military operations, engaging in open confrontation with Iran, and bearing the immense costs of trade losses, investor flight, and international isolation.
Consequently, the plan represents a terrible blow to Israel, one it may neither easily digest nor forgive. In the coming days, Israel is likely to take every possible measure to sabotage this peace process and return to its earlier trajectory—resuming the killing, reoccupying Gaza and the West Bank, expanding illegal settlements, and advancing toward its long-cherished dream of a “Greater Israel.”
Analysts note that this political and psychological blow explains Netanyahu’s open hostility to the plan. His far-right cabinet views Trump’s initiative as an existential threat to their vision of a regional Israel dominating the Middle East under the banner of divine entitlement. For them, the peace plan undermines decades of ideological investment and military strategy, forcing Israel to confront a future where Palestinian sovereignty is not just tolerated but internationally guaranteed.
Ironically, Hamas—the very organization long branded as the obstacle to peace—appears more willing than Israel to accept the plan’s early conditions. For Hamas, exhausted by siege and isolation, participation offers a chance to regain legitimacy and to attract Arab reconstruction funds. Arab monarchies, too, now see in this plan an opportunity to curtail Iran’s influence in the region by weakening Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Tehran-aligned groups. Their alignment with Washington and Trump’s diplomacy has become a tool to re-engineer Middle Eastern politics around a new Sunni-led order.
Yet the geopolitical centerpiece remains Iran. Tehran, though not a signatory to the plan, looms over every conversation. It alone among Muslim powers retains both the will and the capability to confront Israel militarily. Were it not for U.S. intervention, Israel could have faced a deeper crisis during the recent regional escalation, when Iran demonstrated unprecedented drone and missile capabilities. For this reason, the peace plan’s architects understand that no durable arrangement is possible without Iran’s eventual inclusion or at least tacit restraint.
Still, Israel and Iran now stand on opposite sides of Trump’s initiative—each rejecting it for different reasons. Israel sees it as a brake on its territorial expansion; Iran views it as an American-Israeli tool to marginalize its regional role. Meanwhile, the so-called “middle bloc” of Muslim nations—Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and several Gulf states—support the plan conditionally. They will fund Gaza’s reconstruction only after Hamas is dismantled and new governance structures are in place.
This triangulation has created an uneasy balance: two powerful opponents of the plan, Israel and Iran, confronting a coalition of pragmatic states determined to stabilize the region under U.S. oversight. European nations, pressured by outraged publics and student protests, have also pivoted toward endorsing Palestinian statehood and humanitarian aid. They now see peace in Gaza not as a moral luxury but as a political necessity to preserve their own credibility.
If Israel continues to resist implementation, it risks isolation not only diplomatically but also domestically. American universities, churches, and media outlets are increasingly critical of Israel’s conduct. The moral authority Israel once claimed as a besieged democracy is collapsing under the weight of documented atrocities and live-streamed destruction. Without Trump’s backing, its expansionist agenda could face unprecedented limits.
In this new geopolitical equation, the probable losers are Israel, Iran, and Hamas—each for different reasons. Israel loses because it is constrained; Iran loses because its influence may shrink; Hamas loses because it is being rendered irrelevant. The relative winners are the Sunni Arab states, Turkey, Pakistan, and European nations, whose commitment to reconstruction and stability aligns with public opinion and global expectations.
Yet the success of this ambitious plan depends on unprecedented diplomatic coordination. It demands financial commitment from the Arab world, political discipline from Israel, and restraint from Iran. It also requires sustained U.S. engagement—an uncertain prospect in an election year when domestic divisions are deep and foreign entanglements unpopular.
If these elements can somehow be harmonized, Trump’s peace plan could usher in the first tangible path toward Palestinian sovereignty in decades. If they fail, the region will once again descend into chaos—driven by the same forces of mistrust and ambition that have defined the Middle East for generations.
For now, the world watches anxiously, hoping that sanity prevails, that Israel resists the temptation of renewed aggression, and that the people of Gaza may finally reclaim the right to live with dignity, freedom, and peace.
Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former Press Attaché to Malaysia
Former MD, SRBC | Macomb, Michigan, USA
