When former U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled his “Deal of the Century” in January 2020, he claimed it would bring lasting peace to one of the world’s most intractable conflicts — the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Branded as a “vision for peace,” the plan immediately triggered heated debate, especially over its implications for Gaza, a territory that has been at the heart of the struggle for decades.
The Status of Gaza Under the Plan
The Trump plan envisioned Gaza as part of a future Palestinian state, but under highly restrictive conditions. Governance in Gaza would remain tied to a Palestinian authority, but only after Hamas — the Islamist group that currently rules the enclave — disarmed and relinquished control. The plan stipulated that for Palestinians to achieve statehood, they would need to dismantle militant groups, stop rocket fire into Israel, and agree to demilitarization.
In effect, Gaza’s future was made conditional on a complete political overhaul. Until those requirements were met, the enclave would remain isolated, with Israel maintaining security control over its borders, airspace, and coastal waters.
Who Would Govern Gaza?
According to the plan, the Palestinian Authority (PA), based in the West Bank, was the preferred entity to govern Gaza. However, the PA currently has little to no influence in the strip since Hamas seized power in 2007. Trump’s proposal did not outline a clear roadmap for reconciling this deep political rift between Hamas and the PA. Instead, it placed the onus on Palestinians themselves to resolve internal divisions before statehood could be realized.
Critics argue this effectively meant that Gaza would remain in limbo. Unless Hamas stepped aside or was replaced, no Palestinian state envisioned under the plan could materialize. This left unanswered questions about governance, legitimacy, and the political rights of nearly two million Gazans.
What About Gaza’s People?
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza has long been described as dire: high unemployment, limited electricity, shortages of clean water, and a health system under severe strain. The Trump plan promised billions of dollars in international investment to improve infrastructure, create jobs, and expand economic opportunities.
But here too, there were caveats. Aid and development were made conditional on Palestinians accepting the broader political framework — including recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, acceptance of demilitarization, and agreement to strict territorial concessions.
In short, the people of Gaza were promised economic uplift only if their leadership acquiesced to terms many Palestinians saw as eroding their political rights.
The Criticism
Palestinian leaders across the spectrum rejected the plan, calling it a one-sided blueprint that heavily favored Israel. For Gaza, critics said, the plan ignored political realities on the ground and essentially proposed to trade humanitarian relief for political submission.
International observers also questioned whether the plan addressed the root causes of Gaza’s instability. Without a credible political solution that gave Palestinians sovereignty and self-determination, they warned, no amount of economic aid could produce lasting peace.
The Bottom Line
Trump’s peace plan left Gaza at a crossroads: caught between promises of economic revival and the hard reality of political preconditions that were unlikely to be met. By conditioning governance and aid on sweeping changes in Palestinian politics, the plan offered little clarity on who would actually govern Gaza in the short term, and even less reassurance for its people living through daily hardship.
