Can Trump’s ‘20-point plan’ end Gaza War?

Two years have passed since the Gaza War erupted following Hamas’s surprise attack. The fate of the Israeli hostages is still uncertain, while the death toll in Gaza has increased to nearly 70,000, with at least several hundred dead from starvation.

The situation has shifted abruptly with U.S. President Donald Trump unveiling his 20-point Gaza Peace Plan. With backing from key Arab and Muslim leaders, as well as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, expectations for a ceasefire have surged.

Trump’s proposal is a comprehensive and ambitious blueprint. If Israel and Hamas reach an agreement, the ceasefire would take effect immediately, with all hostages, regardless of whether they are alive or dead, returned to their families within 72 hours. The plan also calls for Hamas to disarm, Gaza to be fully demilitarized and Israeli forces to withdraw in phases. Beyond these urgent matters, it also envisions a postwar governance system, the deployment of an international stabilization force, reforms within the Palestinian Authority and even the possible establishment of a Palestinian state. If fully carried out, some argue, the plan could make Trump a serious contender for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Still, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. This ambitious blueprint is only the first step in a long and arduous negotiation. Major roadblocks lie ahead. Above all, Hamas will not easily accept its own disarmament and Gaza’s complete demilitarization. On the other side, suggestions such as including the Palestinian Authority in Gaza’s future governance and offering a credible pathway toward statehood run directly against Netanyahu’s long-held positions. He now faces the challenge of containing the far-right factions in his coalition, who fiercely oppose any concessions to the Palestinians.

Israel and Hamas may read the same document, but draw sharply different interpretations. They may also search for “selling points” to survive domestic politics. But one side’s selling points become the other’s “red lines.” That is why reaching a genuine compromise will be extraordinarily difficult. Moreover, Trump’s proposal lacks action plans and a clear timetable.

In consideration of international opinion, Hamas finds itself in a difficult position to outright reject the plan, yet equally unable to accept it. As a result, many experts predict that, as with so many past peace initiatives, time will pass without meaningful progress. In the end, only competing interpretations and conditional clauses may remain.

The 80-year history of conflict between Israel and Palestine has been a relentless cycle of chaos, marked by war, resistance and terrorism. Palestinians born in 1948 and after have lived their entire lives without ever breathing a single day of peace. As time passes, the prospect of a solution seems increasingly remote. This enduring tragedy carries profound lessons for Koreans as well, who continue to live with the legacy of division and constant security concerns.

First, today’s Middle East reminds us that the vision of leaders can determine the destiny of nations. The international community continues to adhere to the “two-state solution,” which was first proposed under the U.N. Partition Plan of 1947. At the time, Jewish leaders persuaded people to accept the plan with a long-term vision stretching far into the future. By contrast, the Arab world failed to reach consensus and chose war instead. As a result, the two-state solution Arabs call for today is far less favorable than what they rejected in 1947. The lesson is clear: Timing in decision-making is of paramount importance.

Second, we must recognize that the “law of the jungle” governs international politics, where national interests must take precedence over emotions. One-sided criticism blinds us to reality. As Koreans who have ourselves experienced foreign domination, we must approach Middle Eastern issues with sober judgment.

We also need to see the conflict through both Israeli and Palestinian eyes. Israelis argue that Jewish people were expelled from their land by the Romans 2,000 years ago and endured many centuries of persecution. After the loss of 6 million lives in the Holocaust, they returned to establish a state of their own.

Still, immense challenges remain. Palestinians, for their part, had lived in the same land for millennia, only to be suddenly forced to give up half of it. Since then, they have continuously endured despair and frustration. If we were in their position, what choices would we make?

Third, Korea’s role in resolving the Israel–Palestine conflict will inevitably be limited, but not insignificant. We have long supported the two-state solution, but the question of recognizing Palestinian statehood requires a higher dimension of decision. Balancing our principles, national interests, historical precedents and global opinion, we must proceed with caution and fairness.

Korea now seeks to join the G-7. But membership requires responsible action in line with that status. Koreans are confident in our ability to help Palestine establish governance systems and lay the groundwork for Gaza’s reconstruction. Many projects may even open new opportunities for Korean companies. We should also give serious consideration to joining the international stabilization force in Gaza, as suggested in Trump’s plan. What matters most is the quality of our choices. Korea must pursue diplomacy fairly grounded in both principle and national interest. Through such an approach, we can steadily build trust.

Finally, we must reaffirm our commitment to the two-state solution. There is no viable alternative. Despite its flaws, it remains the only framework that offers even a chance of peaceful coexistence. Koreans, who have endured long decades of division, can speak with unique authority on this matter. Our voices may carry more weight than most.

Trump’s plan has sparked a glimmer of new hope. Whether it will succeed remains uncertain. As the ambiguities fade, the direction of its future will become clearer. It is too early to be either optimistic or pessimistic about whether Israel and Hamas will accept and fully implement the plan. Trump’s determination will be a decisive factor, but the participation and contributions of other nations are equally important.

So what should Korea do in this process? We must recognize what the international community expects of us, and willingly shoulder our responsibilities as a nation aspiring to global leadership. Lasting progress will not be achieved through lofty rhetoric, but through consistent principles and faithful execution. That is how we build trust. That is how we pave the way to peace.

Ma Young-sam is a research Fellow at Asiatic Research Institute of Korea University in Seoul. He is South Korea’s former ambassador to Israel and representative to Palestine. The views expressed in this article are his own.