On Tuesday, September 30, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a stern ultimatum to Hamas, the Palestinian resistance group, demanding a response within three to four days to his newly unveiled 20-point Gaza peace plan. Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump emphasized the urgency of the situation, warning that failure to accept the proposal could lead to dire consequences for the group and the region. “We’re going to do about three or four days. We’ll see how it is,” Trump stated, addressing the timeline for Hamas’s response. He added, “We’re just waiting for Hamas, and Hamas is either going to be doing it or not — and if it’s not, it’s going to be a very sad end.”
The announcement follows a high-profile press conference on Monday, where Trump, alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, introduced the peace plan aimed at ending the ongoing war in Gaza, which has claimed tens of thousands of lives and left the enclave in ruins. The plan, which Trump claims has the backing of all Arab and Muslim countries as well as Israel, outlines a series of steps to achieve a ceasefire, secure the release of captives, and establish a new governance structure in Gaza. However, the proposal places significant demands on Hamas, including complete disarmament, raising questions about its feasibility and the group’s willingness to comply.
Background: The Gaza Conflict and Its Devastating Toll
The war in Gaza, which began in October 2023, has been one of the deadliest chapters in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sparked by a Hamas-led attack on southern Israel, the conflict rapidly escalated as Israel launched a massive military campaign in response. According to Palestinian health authorities, the Israeli army has killed over 66,000 Palestinians, with women and children constituting the majority of the casualties. The relentless bombardment has reduced much of Gaza to rubble, destroying homes, schools, hospitals, and critical infrastructure. The United Nations has described the situation as a humanitarian catastrophe, with widespread starvation, disease, and displacement affecting nearly the entire population of 2.3 million.
The blockade imposed by Israel, coupled with restricted access to food, clean water, and medical supplies, has exacerbated the crisis. Reports from international aid organizations indicate that Gaza is on the brink of famine, with children suffering from acute malnutrition and preventable diseases spreading rapidly due to unsanitary conditions. The international community has repeatedly called for a ceasefire, but previous attempts at mediation, including efforts by Egypt, Qatar, and the United Nations, have failed to produce a lasting agreement.
Amid this backdrop, President Trump has positioned his 20-point plan as a decisive step toward resolving the conflict. The proposal comes at a time when global pressure is mounting on both Israel and Hamas to end the violence and address the humanitarian crisis. However, the plan’s ambitious scope and stringent conditions have sparked both hope and skepticism among analysts, diplomats, and stakeholders in the region.
The 20-Point Gaza Peace Plan: Key Provisions
During Monday’s press conference, Trump outlined the key components of his 20-point plan, which he described as a “comprehensive roadmap” to peace in Gaza. While the full details of the plan have not been publicly released, the following elements were highlighted:
Release of Captives and Prisoners: The plan calls for the immediate release of all Israeli captives held by Hamas in Gaza. In exchange, Israel would release dozens of Palestinian prisoners detained in its jails. This swap is seen as a critical first step to de-escalate tensions and build trust between the parties.
Complete Disarmament of Hamas: One of the most contentious provisions is the requirement for Hamas to fully disarm, surrendering all weapons and dismantling its military infrastructure. This demand aligns with Israel’s long-standing position that Hamas’s armed presence poses an existential threat. However, it is likely to be a major sticking point for Hamas, which views its military capabilities as essential for self-defense and resistance.
Gradual Withdrawal of Israeli Forces: The plan proposes a phased withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, contingent on Hamas’s compliance with the disarmament and captive release terms. The withdrawal would be monitored by international observers to ensure security for both sides.
Technocratic Governance in Gaza: To replace Hamas’s political control, the plan envisions the establishment of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee to govern Gaza. This body would be responsible for rebuilding the enclave, overseeing humanitarian aid distribution, and laying the groundwork for long-term stability. The committee would operate under international supervision, with input from regional powers.
Reconstruction and Humanitarian Aid: The plan includes commitments from Arab and Muslim countries to fund and support Gaza’s reconstruction. This would involve rebuilding infrastructure, providing medical care, and addressing the humanitarian crisis. Trump emphasized that the international community, including the United States, would play a significant role in coordinating these efforts.
Regional Cooperation: Trump claimed that all Arab and Muslim countries, as well as Israel, have agreed to support the plan. While specific countries were not named, this suggests involvement from key players such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates, which have previously engaged in peace initiatives.
The plan’s emphasis on disarmament and technocratic governance reflects a clear prioritization of Israeli security concerns, while also addressing the need for humanitarian relief and reconstruction. However, the lack of clarity on certain points, such as the timeline for implementation and the role of international mediators, has raised questions about its practicality.
Reactions to the Plan
The announcement of the 20-point plan has elicited a range of reactions from stakeholders in the region and beyond. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who joined Trump at the White House, expressed strong support for the proposal, calling it a “historic opportunity” to end the conflict and secure Israel’s borders. Netanyahu emphasized that the plan aligns with Israel’s long-term goals of neutralizing Hamas’s military capabilities and ensuring that Gaza does not pose a threat in the future. “This is a chance for peace, but it requires Hamas to make the right choice,” he said during the press conference.
In contrast, Hamas has not yet issued an official response to the plan, but early indications suggest skepticism. A senior Hamas official, speaking anonymously, told Al Jazeera that the group would carefully review the proposal but was wary of provisions that undermine its sovereignty and resistance efforts. The demand for complete disarmament is likely to be a non-starter for Hamas, which has consistently maintained that its weapons are necessary to protect Palestinian rights and resist Israeli occupation.
Palestinian Authority (PA) officials in the West Bank have also expressed reservations. While the PA has long been at odds with Hamas, it views the proposed technocratic committee with suspicion, fearing it could marginalize its own role in Palestinian governance. A spokesperson for PA President Mahmoud Abbas called for greater clarity on how the plan would integrate with existing Palestinian institutions and ensure self-determination.
Among Arab and Muslim countries, reactions have been mixed. Egypt and Qatar, which have played key roles in previous ceasefire negotiations, issued cautious statements welcoming any effort to end the violence but emphasizing the need for Palestinian input and international guarantees. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have normalized relations with Israel in recent years, are reportedly supportive of the plan but have not publicly confirmed their involvement.
Internationally, the response has been similarly nuanced. The United Nations welcomed the initiative but stressed that any peace plan must comply with international law and respect Palestinian rights. European Union officials echoed this sentiment, calling for a balanced approach that addresses both Israeli security concerns and Palestinian aspirations for statehood. Russia and China, meanwhile, have expressed skepticism, viewing the plan as overly aligned with U.S. and Israeli interests.
Implications and Challenges
The success of Trump’s 20-point plan hinges on several critical factors, each presenting significant challenges. First and foremost is Hamas’s response. The group faces immense pressure, both internally and externally, to consider the proposal seriously. However, agreeing to disarm would represent a fundamental shift in its ideology and strategy, potentially alienating its base and weakening its position in Palestinian politics. On the other hand, rejecting the plan could escalate the conflict further, with Trump’s warning of a “very sad end” suggesting the possibility of intensified military action or other punitive measures.
For Israel, the plan aligns with its strategic objectives but carries risks. A phased withdrawal from Gaza could expose Israel to security threats if Hamas or other groups retain any military capabilities. Moreover, the success of the technocratic committee depends on its ability to govern effectively and gain legitimacy among Palestinians, a task complicated by Gaza’s dire conditions and deep-seated political divisions.
The involvement of Arab and Muslim countries is another critical factor. While Trump’s claim of universal support is encouraging, securing sustained financial and political backing for Gaza’s reconstruction will require delicate diplomacy. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have prioritized economic development and regional stability, may be reluctant to commit significant resources without clear assurances of success.
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza adds another layer of complexity. Even if a ceasefire is achieved, addressing the immediate needs of Gaza’s population—food, water, shelter, and medical care—will require rapid and coordinated action. The international community, including the United States, will need to mobilize substantial resources to prevent further suffering and lay the foundation for long-term recovery.
Broader Context: Trump’s Foreign Policy and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
The Gaza peace plan is a hallmark of Trump’s broader foreign policy approach, which emphasizes bold, unilateral initiatives and leverages U.S. influence to broker deals. During his first term, Trump pursued a similar strategy with the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states. The 20-point plan builds on this legacy, seeking to integrate regional powers into a comprehensive solution for Gaza.
However, critics argue that the plan reflects a pro-Israel bias, with provisions like Hamas’s disarmament and the technocratic committee aligning closely with Israeli demands. The absence of explicit references to Palestinian statehood or the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict raises concerns that the plan addresses only the symptoms of the crisis, not its root causes. For many Palestinians, the ongoing occupation, settlement expansion, and lack of political horizon remain central issues that any peace initiative must address.
Trump’s ultimatum also underscores his administration’s willingness to take a hardline stance against Hamas. By framing the group’s response as a binary choice—acceptance or dire consequences—Trump is signaling a low tolerance for prolonged negotiations. This approach may appeal to his domestic base and allies like Israel but risks alienating other stakeholders, including Palestinian factions and international mediators who favor a more inclusive process.
The Path Forward
As the three-to-four-day deadline looms, the world is watching closely to see how Hamas will respond and whether Trump’s plan can break the cycle of violence in Gaza. For the people of Gaza, who have endured unimaginable suffering, the stakes could not be higher. A successful peace agreement could pave the way for reconstruction, stability, and hope, but failure could plunge the region into further chaos.
The coming days will be critical in determining the plan’s fate. Hamas’s decision will depend on a complex calculus of political, military, and humanitarian considerations. Meanwhile, Israel, the United States, and regional powers must navigate their own priorities, balancing security, diplomacy, and the urgent need to address Gaza’s humanitarian crisis.
Regardless of the outcome, the 20-point plan represents a significant moment in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It underscores the challenges of achieving peace in a region marked by deep divisions and entrenched grievances. Whether Trump’s bold vision can succeed where previous efforts have failed remains an open question, but its impact will undoubtedly shape the future of Gaza and the broader Middle East.
Conclusion
President Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan, unveiled on September 30, 2025, represents a high-stakes attempt to end the devastating war in Gaza and chart a path toward stability. By issuing a three-to-four-day ultimatum to Hamas, Trump has raised the pressure on the group to accept a proposal that includes significant concessions, such as disarmament and the release of captives. While the plan has garnered support from Israel and reportedly from Arab and Muslim countries, its success is far from guaranteed. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the complex dynamics of Palestinian politics, and the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict pose formidable challenges.
As the deadline approaches, the international community must grapple with the plan’s implications and the potential consequences of its failure. For the people of Gaza, who have suffered immense loss, the hope for peace hangs in the balance. Whether Trump’s initiative will mark a turning point or become another missed opportunity remains to be seen, but its outcome will reverberate across the region and beyond.
