On September 29, 2025, the world watched as President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened at the White House for a meeting that would send ripples throughout the Middle East. The two leaders, already well-known for their close alliance, met to discuss a new U.S.-backed peace initiative aimed at halting the ongoing Gaza conflict, a war that has drawn international condemnation and left tens of thousands dead. The meeting, which culminated in a joint press conference, revealed both the substance of the plan and the complex web of international politics now swirling around it.
According to The Daily Express US, Trump greeted Netanyahu warmly as he arrived, quickly shifting to the urgent matter at hand. In a private exchange captured by a lip reader, Trump reportedly told Netanyahu, “We need to free the hostages and we will be doing everything possible together.” He continued, “Anyway, we’re here for you. We can escalate it together.” The candor of these remarks underscored the level of coordination between the two administrations, especially as the war in Gaza shows no sign of abating.
The peace plan itself is ambitious—perhaps even audacious. As outlined in the White House’s public release, the 21-point proposal calls for the release of all Israeli hostages, as well as 250 Palestinians serving life sentences and 1,700 Palestinians detained since the conflict erupted on October 7, 2023. The plan, which the Netanyahu administration has accepted, is now pending approval from Hamas. “Today is a historic day for peace,” Trump declared during the press conference, as reported by The Citizen. “Netanyahu and I just completed a meeting on Iran, trade, expansion of Abraham Accords and how to end war in Gaza. Let’s call it eternal peace in the Middle East.”
But the optimism was tempered by hard realities. Trump was quick to issue a warning: if Hamas rejects the proposal, “Israel would have my full backing to finish the job of destroying the threat of Hamas.” Netanyahu matched this sentiment with a steely response: “If Hamas rejects your plan, Mr. President, or if they supposedly accept it and then do everything to counter it, then Israel will finish the job by itself. This can be done the easy way or it can be done the hard way, but it will be done.”
As of the day of the meeting, 48 hostages were still being held in Gaza, with only about 20 believed to be alive. The human cost of the conflict is staggering. Gaza’s Health Ministry reports around 66,000 Palestinians killed since October 7, 2023, while other sources, including The Citizen, cite figures as high as 680,000 by April 2025 when accounting for deaths from forced starvation. The numbers, regardless of the exact count, paint a grim picture of the ongoing humanitarian crisis.
The Trump administration’s plan goes beyond a simple ceasefire. It calls for Arab and Muslim countries to commit to demilitarizing Gaza, establishing a timeline for Israeli withdrawal, and placing responsibility for dealing with Hamas squarely on the shoulders of Arab states. Trump claimed, “Arab and Muslim countries have committed to demilitarising Gaza. All parties will agree on a timeline for Israeli forces to withdraw from Gaza, and Arab countries will deal with Hamas.” This regional approach, he argued, would bring about not just an end to the war in Gaza but “eternal peace in the Middle East.”
Yet, the plan has not been universally welcomed. Hamas, notably, stated that it was not consulted on the latest U.S. proposal, which includes terms it had previously rejected. The skepticism is understandable: previous efforts have repeatedly stalled, and the trust deficit between the parties remains immense. The international community, too, has weighed in. Australia, Canada, and the UK have recognized Palestine, and a coalition of 28 countries—including France and the UK—has demanded that Israel lift aid restrictions and immediately halt its operations in Gaza.
The political theater surrounding the plan has been equally dramatic. During the press conference, Trump thanked Pakistan’s prime minister and army chief for supporting the U.S. plan, a move interpreted by some as an attempt to further isolate India and Iran. Meanwhile, Netanyahu found himself apologizing by phone to Qatar’s Emir Thani after an Israeli airstrike on Doha—an event that occurred while he was meeting with Trump. The strike, involving ten Israeli warplanes flying a remarkable 1,800 kilometers through multiple countries, failed to hit Hamas leadership but did coincide with a 40-nation Arab-Islamic summit in Doha.
The summit, attended by Pakistan and Turkey among others, was officially a show of solidarity against Israel but, according to The Citizen, was in fact intended to target Iran. Pakistan even offered its nuclear capabilities for a proposed Arab-Islamic NATO, and a Saudi-Pakistan Defence Agreement was discussed in the same context. The U.S. presence in Qatar, home to the CENTCOM headquarters, added another layer of intrigue. Trump, for his part, feigned surprise and annoyance at the Israeli strike, though many observers believe he had advance knowledge.
Critics argue that Trump’s latest peace plan is less about achieving a genuine ceasefire and more about securing the release of hostages while providing Israel with diplomatic cover to continue its military operations. As The Citizen put it, “Trump’s latest peace plan appears to be a trick to get all hostages released by Hamas. But with 680,000 Palestinians killed (forced starvation deaths included) by April 2025, where is the guarantee of a ceasefire?” The article raises further questions: What if Houthi and Hezbollah continue to attack Israel? Who guarantees that Israel will not resume hostilities once the hostages are released?
The regional dynamics are shifting in other ways as well. Turkey has begun training over 300 Syrian soldiers under a Syria-Turkey agreement signed in August 2025, with plans to increase the number to 20,000. This move is seen by some as a revival of Al Qaeda’s influence in the region, reminiscent of past U.S. and UK support for similar groups in the early 2010s.
Within the U.S. and abroad, reactions to the Trump-Netanyahu plan have been sharply divided. Some see it as a bold step toward lasting peace, while others view it as a cynical maneuver designed to placate certain allies and maintain American influence in the region. The stakes are enormous, and the risks—both political and humanitarian—are higher than ever.
As the world waits for Hamas’s response to the plan, the fate of Gaza, its hostages, and the broader Middle East hangs in the balance. For now, the only certainty is that peace remains elusive, and the cost of failure is measured in lives lost and futures shattered.
