Facts, Conditions, and Prospects
Policy Paper
Dr. Mohamad Kawas – Progress Center for Policies
⸻
Executive Summary
• The “Peace Council,” chaired by President Donald Trump, represents a regional–international structure tasked with overseeing the implementation of the Gaza plan, which promises a “credible pathway” toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.
• The initiative reflects Washington’s seriousness in assuming direct oversight of a plan that, through the Gaza file, aims to reshape regional equations in the Middle East.
• The plan is undermined by a lack of clarity, vague objectives, a multiplicity of actors, and uncertainty regarding the availability of full UN backing aligned with the interests of key stakeholders.
• Israel appears to be engaging with the plan reluctantly, while remaining prepared to undermine it as soon as favorable conditions arise.
• The plan excludes Palestinians from membership in the “Peace Council,” while the proposed “Palestinian Technocratic Committee” raises deep concern and suspicion among both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, given the implications it carries for the future of existing Palestinian institutional structures.
⸻
Introduction
U.S. President Donald Trump announced, as part of his plan to end the war in Gaza, the formation of a multinational “Peace Council” and a “Palestinian Technocratic Committee.” These international and Palestinian structures are intended to establish a pathway aimed at consolidating the ceasefire in Gaza, deploying an international “stabilization force,” disarming Hamas, undertaking reconstruction, and exploring a “credible pathway” toward the establishment of a Palestinian state. What are the conditions, trajectories, and implications of this process?
⸻
Plan Structures: A Council, a Committee, and Promises
The establishment of the “Peace Council” and the Palestinian Technocratic Committee on 15 January 2026 represents the central pillar of President Trump’s plan to halt the Gaza war, which entered into force on 10 October 2025. The plan constitutes a comprehensive framework aimed at ending the conflict in the Strip, prioritizing reconstruction and paving the way toward Palestinian statehood.
Trump personally chairs the Peace Council, giving the project a distinctly personal character and placing Gaza—and what lies beyond it—under his direct supervision. The council’s membership includes figures from multiple countries, combining U.S. weight with regional and international influence.
The council brings together American figures such as Trump’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, his special envoy Steve Witkoff, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, alongside representatives from Arab states including Qatar, Egypt, and the UAE, as well as Turkey, Israel, and other Western countries. While this structure seeks to aggregate diverse forms of influence, it remains vague in its operational details, as Trump outlined only a general design without specifying precise mandates or enforcement mechanisms.
The multinational council oversees a “Palestinian Technocratic Committee” composed of 15 independent technical experts, chaired by engineer Ali Sha’ath, tasked with administering Gaza after the war. Trump also appointed General Jasper Jeffers as commander of an international stabilization force in Gaza. Together, these elements form the core of Trump’s 20-point plan, which includes drawing a “credible pathway” toward the creation of a Palestinian state, alongside promises to end the conflict and rebuild the region.
⸻
The United States: Leadership, Decision-Making, and Oversight
The feasibility of implementing the plan remains uncertain due to the ambiguity of many of its components and its reliance on improvisation rather than binding foundational texts. While successful implementation could lead to the reconstruction of Gaza through internationally supported infrastructure projects and lay the groundwork for a limited Palestinian state, logistical and political challenges significantly constrain prospects.
Progress toward Palestinian statehood also hinges on Israeli and Arab acceptance. The plan is framed as a reassurance to capitals such as Riyadh that Washington remains committed to the principle of statehood prior to any further normalization. Yet, in the absence of detailed implementation mechanisms, the initiative risks becoming a symbolic framework lacking tangible horizons—especially if objections persist from Palestinian and Israeli actors alike.
Nevertheless, the plan signals U.S. seriousness through Trump’s personal leadership of the Peace Council, backed by U.S. institutions and military involvement (with an American general leading the international stabilization force), reflecting an unprecedented level of American engagement in sponsoring a regional peace project.
⸻
Phased Implementation: Council, Committee, and Promises
The plan envisions transforming Gaza from a conflict zone into a model of stability through phased implementation that began on 10 October 2025. The first phase focuses on stabilization mechanisms, including the deployment of an international force and interim governance via the technocratic committee, aimed at transferring authority in the Strip and preventing renewed monopolization of power.
A second phase centers on comprehensive reconstruction and sustained pressure toward a political settlement leading to Palestinian statehood. The plan relies on U.S. leverage to exert pressure, drawing on Arab and international support to introduce a new administrative model that sidelines traditional political fronts.
This approach replaces earlier proposals—such as mass displacement or real estate-driven projects like the proposed “Gaza Riviera”—which were abandoned following regional rejection. Instead, the current framework emphasizes peace-building that begins with ending the war and extends through reconstruction, supported by international financing and direct U.S. oversight.
Yet ambiguity continues to plague the roadmap. No clear reference texts define how the process leads to Palestinian statehood, rendering the plan heavily dependent on Trump’s personal flexibility in managing political trade-offs—illustrated by replacing Tony Blair with Nikolay Mladenov as council coordinator to avoid objections.
⸻
International and Local Geopolitical Context
The announcement of the Peace Council and Palestinian committee came amid broader geopolitical developments, including Trump’s threats of strikes against Iran, his efforts to address the war in Ukraine, and preparations for other initiatives such as the Greenland file. This reflects a qualitative shift in Trump’s approach to Gaza and the Palestinian issue more broadly.
The plan emerged at a moment marked by the relative decline of Iranian influence and its regional axis, reducing Tehran’s capacity to obstruct Washington’s peace initiative. Conversely, Israel’s regional power has expanded, benefiting from international solidarity following the 7 October 2023 “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation.
Israeli positions range from cautious support to deep skepticism. Historically opposed to international conferences, Israel prefers exclusive U.S. mediation—something Trump effectively provides by anchoring the Peace Council under American sponsorship. However, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing government have objected to the formation of a Palestinian technocratic committee without Israeli consultation, viewing it as a threat to Israeli control. Despite Netanyahu’s characterization of Trump as the most pro-Israel U.S. president, Israel appears compelled to tolerate the plan temporarily while awaiting an opportunity to derail it should it clash with its security objectives.
International reactions remain mixed. While several Western allies are represented in the Peace Council, the lack of clarity regarding mandates generates widespread caution. Many states hesitate to contribute forces to the international stabilization mission in Gaza due to uncertainty surrounding the plan’s scope and end goals.
Reports suggest that Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt are expected to play roles in addressing Hamas’s weapons in Gaza. Trump’s outreach—to the Jordanian monarch, the presidents of Egypt and Turkey, and potentially figures such as UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer or French President Emmanuel Macron—aims to broaden international participation and enhance the plan’s chances of success.
⸻
The Plan in Palestinian Calculations
Both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are navigating the Trump administration’s imposed realities with uncertainty and caution. While both express restrained diplomatic support and nominal hope for eventual peace and statehood, significant concerns persist:
1. Palestinians are excluded from membership in the Peace Council, despite its authority over issues deemed existential for Palestinian futures.
2. The Palestinian Technocratic Committee operates independently of both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, raising suspicions that its success could serve as a model for replacing existing leadership structures in Gaza—and potentially the West Bank.
3. Palestinian media sources suggest that several committee members are close to the faction led by Mohammad Dahlan, a prominent opponent of President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority.
4. Hamas and other armed factions fear that pressure from Turkey, Egypt, and Qatar—combined with the presence of an independent Palestinian governing body—could compel them to relinquish weapons to the new Gaza administration.
5. The council and committee impose transformative shifts on Palestinian political arrangements established since the 1993 Oslo Accords, pushing them toward uncertain trajectories incompatible with entrenched power structures.
6. The notion of a “credible pathway” to Palestinian statehood lacks clear plans, references, and benchmarks defining the contours of such a state and the credibility of U.S. sponsorship.
7. From the Palestinian Authority’s perspective, the technocratic committee is viewed as an invention that threatens its legitimacy and authority in Ramallah, particularly given links to the Dahlan reformist current.
8. Hamas initially objected to the appointment of a retired Palestinian intelligence official as security coordinator in Gaza, but the issue was resolved through meetings between Hamas leaders and the Fatah reformist current. Consequently, Hamas endorsed the committee’s formation, expressed willingness to engage with the administrative framework, and accused Israel of obstruction and sabotage.
⸻
Conclusions and Findings
• The formation of the Peace Council and Palestinian Technocratic Committee establishes the operational structures for implementing Trump’s Gaza plan and shaping the future of the Palestinian question.
• Trump’s announcement marks the launch of the plan’s second phase and signals U.S. seriousness, with Trump personally overseeing the initiative through his chairmanship of the council.
• Significant ambiguity surrounds the plan’s execution tools, Washington’s ability to impose outcomes on Israel, and the capacity to align international conditions in its favor.
• The mandates and effectiveness of the council and committee remain unclear in the absence of firm international resolve and coherent roadmaps insulated from competing domestic and external agendas.
• Netanyahu’s objection to a Palestinian committee governing Gaza underscores Israel’s entrenched rejection of Palestinian agency in Gaza’s future, and more broadly, its ideological resistance to the concept of Palestinian statehood.
• Saudi Arabia’s continued absence from the Peace Council raises questions about the depth of Arab and Gulf endorsement of Trump’s initiative and the conditions required to secure it.
• Trump’s outreach to Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, and potentially other regional and international leaders represents an effort to construct the broadest possible supportive environment for the plan.
• The lack of clarity regarding incentives for states to contribute to the international stabilization force raises doubts about the enforceability of security arrangements in Gaza.
• Ultimately, Trump’s plan poses profound questions for both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas regarding the future of existing Palestinian political structures, particularly given the exclusion of official Palestinian representation from the Peace Council and the transfer of Gaza’s administration to an independent Palestinian body.
