October 2, 2025
DHAKA – A cessation of two years of bloodshed in Gaza is an urgent moral and humanitarian imperative. The ceasefire proposal advanced by US President Donald Trump would deliver a pause in the colossal human cost. The guarantee of full aid is a vital lifeline for a population grappling with famine. This would bring immediate, if immense, relief to the people of Gaza. Even so, it is a proposal that offers peace without a viable political horizon, and in doing so, risks becoming a recipe for the next conflict. It is a political document that, while halting the violence, seeks to impose a unilateral new order.
According to the document, after the reform of the Palestinian Authority, conditions “may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.” This is nothing but diplomatic ambiguity. This vague promise is then rendered almost meaningless by the political reality it enables. It becomes more fragile as Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu has reaffirmed his stance to resist Palestinian statehood.
As critics have rightly pointed out, it provides all guarantees to one side and almost none to the other. The mechanisms, such as the withdrawal of Israeli troops contingent on opaque conditions and the establishment of a “Board of Peace” under Trump’s stewardship with a controversial figure, Tony Blair, are designed to ensure Israeli security concerns are met. But what about Palestinian political and human rights? What about the overarching issues of justice and accountability? It makes no mention of genocide against the Palestinian people, allegations detailed by human rights organisations. Instead, the plan offers a governance vacuum. An international board, no matter how well-intentioned, is a poor substitute for legitimate, representative Palestinian leadership. This approach not only disenfranchises the Palestinian people but also sows the seeds for future instability.
Furthermore, Trump’s heavy-handed ultimatum is a form of coercive diplomacy that may not build a lasting peace. It reinforces a damaging power dynamic where the terms are dictated by the party that wields superior military force, funded and diplomatically shielded by its superpower patron. A durable peace must be built on mutual recognition of rights and needs.
This arrives at a curious diplomatic moment. Just as the US and Israel pursue this unilateral track, a significant shift is occurring among Western allies. The recent recognitions of Palestinian statehood by several European nations, however symbolic, are a clear signal that the international community is seeking to re-anchor the conflict to the principle of a two-state solution. Trump’s plan, by contrast, seems to ignore this consensus. Nevertheless, despite its flaws and ambiguities, the framework’s immediate goal is to halt the bloodshed in Gaza, which is significant. And we welcome any respite for the people of Gaza. But a lasting solution requires a credible political process that addresses the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians. Without that, today’s ceasefire will only be an interlude before the next explosion.