EditTrump’s Gaza peace plan takes shape amid deep skepticism
Critics argue it risks creating a depoliticised, externally supervised Gaza without genuine sovereignty or accountability for past actions
A detailed 15-point “Roadmap to Complete the Implementation of President Trump’s Gaza Comprehensive Peace Plan” has been made public by Nickolay Mladenov, Director-General of the U.S.-led Board of Peace.
Presented following a UN Security Council briefing, the document outlines a structured, phased approach to move beyond the fragile October 2025 ceasefire toward demilitarization, transitional governance, and large-scale reconstruction.
Following today’s #UN Security Council briefing, I am publishing the core elements of the proposed 15-point “Roadmap to Complete the Implementation of President Trump’s Gaza Comprehensive Peace Plan” in plain language.
• Points 1–5: Principles
• Points 6–11: Security
• Points…— Nickolay E. MLADENOV (@nmladenov) May 21, 2026
The roadmap, which builds on Trump’s broader 20-point plan endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2803, emphasises reciprocity, independent verification, and a gradual transfer of responsibilities to a Palestinian-led technocratic body. It reflects the Trump administration’s preference for transactional, results-oriented diplomacy in one of the world’s most intractable conflicts.
Core principles and structure
The first five points establish foundational principles. These include full commitment to the UN resolution and the overall plan, completion of initial ceasefire obligations (aid access, fuel, shelter, and crossings), and strict verification mechanisms before advancing. A central innovation is the role assigned to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) – a technocratic Palestinian body tasked with day-to-day civilian governance during the transition – supported by an Office of the High Representative linked to the Board of Peace.
Point 5 explicitly addresses Hamas: the plan seeks to separate armed factions from governing institutions while protecting ordinary civil servants. It enforces the principle of “One Authority, One Law, One Weapon,” aiming to eliminate parallel armed structures.
Security and disarmament focus
Points 6–11 form the security core. They call for police reform and integration, a gradual, Palestinian-led decommissioning process (with weapons transferred to NCAG control under international monitoring rather than to Israel), regulation of personal weapons through licensing and buy-back programs, and a “Social Peace Agreement” to prevent internal Palestinian violence or reprisals.
The plan deliberately avoids demanding immediate unilateral disarmament, instead tying progress to verified reciprocal steps.
International force and Israeli withdrawal
Points 12–14 introduce an International Stabilization Force (ISF) to act as a temporary buffer, protect humanitarian operations, and support the transition without taking over policing duties. Israeli withdrawal is framed as phased and conditional on verified decommissioning progress and ISF deployment. Once areas are certified as fully decommissioned, responsibility for security shifts to the NCAG.
Reconstruction as the payoff
The final point links large-scale reconstruction – backed by billions in pledged international funding – directly to verified stability and civilian governance. The faster implementation advances, the quicker major rebuilding of homes, infrastructure, and economic life can begin.
Analytical assessment
Strengths: the roadmap is pragmatic and sequenced. By emphasizing verification and reciprocity, it attempts to address the profound lack of trust between the parties. It creates institutional mechanisms (NCAG, ISF, Board of Peace) that could, in theory, fill the governance vacuum left by Hamas while avoiding direct Israeli re-occupation. The economic incentive – reconstruction tied to compliance – aligns with Trump’s deal-making style and could appeal to war-weary Palestinians and Gulf donors.
Major challenges and risks:
- Palestinian reception: many Palestinians and analysts view the plan as heavily skewed toward Israeli security demands while placing the primary burden of disarmament on the weaker side. Critics argue it risks creating a depoliticized, externally supervised Gaza without genuine sovereignty or accountability for past actions. Hamas’s willingness to fully cede power remains highly doubtful.
- Implementation gaps: the ceasefire has been “far from perfect,” with ongoing violations and casualties reported. Trust in verification mechanisms is low on all sides.
- Broader political context: the plan sidesteps deeper final-status issues (statehood, Jerusalem, refugees) in favor of a Gaza-first technocratic approach. While this allows progress on the ground, it may freeze the conflict rather than resolve it. Israel’s willingness to fully withdraw as milestones are met will be tested, as will the international community’s ability to sustain the ISF and funding.
Trump’s Gaza initiative represents a self-style top-down experiment: using American leverage, Arab financial muscle, and international technocrats to engineer a post-Hamas Gaza. Whether this structured roadmap can overcome decades of mistrust and entrenched interests – or simply becomes another layer of temporary administration – will define its legacy. For now, the plan has moved from broad vision to operational detail, but the real test lies in implementation on the devastated streets of Gaza.
Caption: Bulgarian diplomat Nickolay Mladenov, High Representative for Gaza and director-general of the US-led ‘Board of Peace’ (BoP), addresses a press briefing in Jerusalem, 13 May 2026. EPA/ATEF SAFADI
Updated: May 22, 2026 - 09:24
