TEHRAN – President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza, presented by Washington as a blueprint for stability and reconstruction, has drawn heavy criticism for serving as political cover for Israel’s ongoing military operations.
Despite the October 10 ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, Israeli attacks and operations in the Gaza Strip continue. This sustained violence undermines claims of detente and suggests that the plan is being used to advance U.S. and Israeli strategic goals rather than to truly protect Palestinian civilians.
A central feature of the US diplomatic push is a draft UN Security Council resolution calling on member states to authorize a long-term International Stabilization Force (ISF) and establish transitional governance arrangements. The United States has warned of dire consequences if negotiations stall and is calling for swift action. The proposal envisions a foreign security presence through 2027, with broad powers over Gaza’s borders, humanitarian corridors, and demilitarization efforts. Importantly, this sidelines the Palestinian Authority and excludes it from a representative role for Palestinians in the transition period.
One of the most controversial elements of the plan is the creation of a transitional governing body, the Peace Committee, intended to oversee Gaza’s administration and reconstruction. The board would oversee a “technocratic, apolitical Palestinian commission” and would have broad powers until externally defined conditions for “Palestinian reform” were met. This structure raises serious concerns about sovereignty and democratic legitimacy. This effectively places the future of Gaza no longer under Palestinian control, but rather under the supervision of internationally mandated institutions. This design concentrates decision-making in the hands of external powers and appears closely aligned with US and Israeli political goals.
The economic aspects of the proposal, often referred to as the “Riviera Plan,” further reflect this approach. By envisioning Gaza as a future tourism and investment hub, the plan reframes reconstruction as a commercial project rather than a political process based on rights and self-determination. Critics argue that these initiatives seek to replace true liberation with economic promises and gloss over the structural realities of occupation and blockade.
In contrast, Russia and China have articulated a more balanced and pro-sovereignty position within the United Nations. Both countries reject the idea of a peace commission and oppose externally imposed governing arrangements that exclude Palestinians from shaping their country’s political future. Russia proposed an alternative resolution calling on the UN Secretary-General to independently assess options for a stabilization force, while China emphasized the primacy of Palestinian sovereignty, the importance of international law, and the need for a credible path to statehood. Their position provides an important counterweight to U.S. efforts to strengthen its influence on Gaza’s postwar trajectory.
Taken together, the Trump plan appears to be less a genuine peace initiative and more a framework designed to entrench existing power structures while giving Israel and the United States effective control over Gaza’s future. A sustainable peace must center on Palestinian rights, representation, and national self-determination and should not be replaced by externally imposed mechanisms presented as diplomatic solutions.