On October 13, 2025, world leaders gathered in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, for a summit that many hoped would mark a turning point in the long and bloody conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. President Donald Trump, flanked by the presidents of Egypt and Turkey and the Emir of Qatar, unveiled a 20-point peace plan that was quickly endorsed in principle by most Arab and Muslim states present. But the days since have exposed just how fragile and complicated this new roadmap to peace truly is.
At the heart of the plan, according to Forward, is an immediate ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli troops to a pre-agreed line, the return of hostages held by Hamas, and the release of Palestinian prisoners. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted these terms during a White House meeting in September, while Hamas agreed only to the first phase. Yet, even this initial step has proven difficult to implement. On the day of the summit, only four of about two dozen deceased hostages were returned to Israeli authorities, with four more the following day. Egyptian teams continue to search for the remaining bodies, but the Red Cross has warned that some may never be found. In response to these delays, Israel slashed the number of aid trucks permitted into Gaza from 600 to 300 daily, increasing hardship for civilians and raising questions about the plan’s viability.
The peace plan’s ambitions are sweeping. It promises to redevelop Gaza for the benefit of its people, who, as the agreement states, “have suffered more than enough.” The territory is to be governed by a temporary, technocratic Palestinian committee—fifteen members, according to Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty, approved in conjunction with Israel. This committee, composed of qualified Palestinians and international experts, will operate under the supervision of a new international body, the “Board of Peace,” to be chaired by Trump himself. The idea, as articulated by the plan, is to provide “apolitical” governance and public services for Gaza’s population until the Palestinian Authority (PA) is deemed sufficiently reformed to take over.
Yet, as Aaron David Miller, a seasoned Middle East negotiator, told Forward, “This is not the Oslo agreement. It doesn’t call for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. It’s not a peace agreement between Israel and key Arab states. It is a road map that could potentially end the war in Gaza. That’s what it is. It’s nothing more than that.” Miller noted that the plan is “inherently a pro-Israeli plan, both in terms of structure and substance,” and that it could have been “created in an Israeli laboratory.”
One of the most contentious elements of the plan is the fate of Hamas. The document stipulates that Hamas “will agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form,” and that “all military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt.” But Hamas has so far resisted disarmament. As Miller pointed out, “Every point in this plan is filled with a universe of complexity and detail that’s yet to be negotiated.”
For Gaza’s residents, the plan offers freedom to leave and return at will, a notable shift from Trump’s earlier proposals that envisioned permanent resettlement in neighboring Arab states. There are also nods to economic development, such as the creation of a special economic zone and what’s being called a “Trump economic development plan.” An interfaith dialogue process is also envisioned, with the lofty goal of changing mindsets and narratives between Palestinians and Israelis.
But perhaps the thorniest issue is the question of Palestinian statehood. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, speaking at the summit, called Trump’s plan the “last chance” for peace in the Middle East and insisted it should pave the way for a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Trump, however, struck a different tone. “I’m talking about something very much different,” he said, adding, “A lot of people like the one-state solution, and some people like the two-state solution … we’ll have to see. I haven’t commented on that.” The plan itself leaves the door open only vaguely, stating that “when the PA reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.”
Europe, meanwhile, has found itself largely sidelined in the negotiations, despite key leaders attending the summit. As DW reported, the European Union has pledged to be “an active force within the Palestinian Donors Group,” with EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promising more than $50 billion for Gaza’s reconstruction. European Council President Antonio Costa expressed willingness to support the plan’s transitional governance and contribute to Gaza’s security. Yet, when it comes to the influential “Board of Peace,” no European representatives have been invited so far. Germany, France, and the UK—the so-called European Three—have reportedly sought a seat at the table, but Israeli reservations persist, especially given past unilateral recognitions of Palestinian statehood by some European states.
There is also debate in Europe about contributing troops to an International Stabilization Force (ISF), which Trump’s plan envisions for Gaza. French President Emmanuel Macron has signaled readiness to participate, but many European nations remain hesitant, citing domestic political concerns and uncertainties about the force’s mandate. “If the mandate of a foreign mission was to enforce Hamas disarmament, against Hamas’ will, there will be no European contribution, full stop,” Hugh Lovatt of the European Council on Foreign Relations told DW. However, European troops could be deployed for monitoring, as they have been on the Israel-Lebanon border.
Experts remain skeptical about the new technocratic committee’s ability to govern effectively. Joe Truzman, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, commented, “While it’s encouraging that an independent Palestinian body is expected to oversee Gaza’s post-war administration, its actual authority remains uncertain. At present, Hamas, still armed and entrenched, retains real control on the ground. Unless Hamas and other terrorist factions are disarmed, that balance of power is unlikely to change.”
Enia Krivine, also of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argued that the future of the ceasefire depends on Hamas fulfilling its obligations: “Due to Hamas’s failure to return 24 fallen hostages, the future of the ceasefire is uncertain. Hamas and its terror partners should be working day and night to locate and return the remains of Israel’s dead. This is no time to split hairs on what a future Palestinian state could look like. Before that conversation can even begin, Hamas must return the hostages and disarm, per Trump’s 20-point plan.”
The European Union, for its part, continues to champion a two-state solution, but some observers suggest that the Trump plan pushes this goal further into the future. As Jean Loop Samaan, a research fellow at the Middle East Institute, told DW, “Europeans were largely sidelined from the US initiative and the key principle of Palestinian statehood remains a much more distant goal in the Trump approach than in the European approach.”
As the world watches the first phase of the ceasefire unfold, the optimism of the Sharm el-Sheikh summit is already giving way to the hard realities on the ground. The fate of Gaza—and the prospect of lasting peace—hangs in the balance, dependent on the actions of leaders, the willingness of factions to compromise, and the resilience of a battered population hoping for a better future.