Trump's Gaza Peace Plan: A Congo-Style Takeover or Strategic Mirage?

Gaza City, Gaza Strip: In the rubble-strewn streets where 10,000 decaying corpses lie unburied and 92% of residential buildings stand damaged or destroyed, a new UN resolution has sparked both despair and debate. The Security Council's Resolution 2803, endorsed in late 2025, has effectively placed the fate of Gaza's 2.3 million residents in the hands of a single individual: former US President Donald Trump. As one resident, whose name has been withheld for safety, surveys the landscape of 61 million tons of rubble and 9 million tons of hazardous waste, they whisper, "We survived the bombs, but what comes next may be worse."

The resolution, which Middle East scholar Norman Finkelstein describes as "abolishing 70 years of UN history," establishes a "Board of Peace" with Trump as its head, making Gaza "one more property in the Trump organization's portfolio." Finkelstein, in a detailed discussion with journalist Chris Hedges, draws a chilling parallel: "It's the Congo all over again," referencing the 1885 Berlin Conference that gave the Congo to King Leopold II. The legal framework that has governed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for decades-including the consensus that Israel is an occupying power, that Gaza is occupied territory, and that Palestinians have the right to self-determination and statehood-has been systematically dismantled.

Recent geopolitical shifts have created the conditions for this unprecedented move. The plan, which halted active hostilities after two devastating years of war and secured hostage returns, represents what analyst Leon Hadar calls "ambition without strategy." While the 20-point plan creates elaborate organizational structures-including an executive board and technocratic government-it fails to address fundamental power dynamics. The proposed Palestinian technocratic government lacks both popular legitimacy and the capacity to exercise force, while Hamas, which controls Gaza through force, is to be bypassed entirely.

The statistics paint a grim picture of the humanitarian catastrophe. Beyond the structural damage, Gaza faces complete infrastructure collapse: no clean water, electricity, or sewage treatment. The international community's response has been mixed at best. Russia and China abstained from the vote, with Russia calling it "a black day in the history of the United Nations." Arab and Muslim states supported the resolution under what Finkelstein describes as "pressure" from Western powers. The proposed International Stabilization Force, despite UN authorization, has seen no nation formally commit troops, with countries like Indonesia and Azerbaijan growing silent, unwilling to cooperate with Israeli forces or fight Hamas on Israel's behalf.

"The plan calls for Hamas disarmament as a precondition for Israeli withdrawal," Finkelstein explains, "but gives Israel veto power over whether Hamas has been disarmed. Netanyahu doesn't want Hamas to disarm because Hamas serves as a pretext for continued Israeli control." This circular logic creates what Hadar identifies as the plan's central flaw: "It assumes administrative structures can substitute for addressing sovereignty, security, and power."

The ripple effects extend beyond Gaza's borders. The plan's deeply personalized nature-with Trump chairing the Board of Peace and his son-in-law sitting on the executive board-makes it vulnerable to political transitions and dependent on Trump's personal attention. This mirrors what Hadar calls "the Nobel Peace Prize paradox," suggesting Trump's urgency may be driven by desire for the prestigious award, highlighting "the conflation of peace agreements with actual peace."

Regional competitors and allies alike watch with skepticism. The plan offers what Hadar describes as "conditional, distant possibilities for Palestinian statehood with no timeline, borders, capital, or guarantees." The language, carefully hedged to satisfy everyone diplomatically while committing to nothing substantively, creates what one regional analyst calls "a statehood mirage."

Looking ahead, experts see limited grounds for optimism. Finkelstein emphasizes the importance of organizing, free speech, and political activism, stating bluntly, "There are no grounds for optimism." Hadar outlines what a realistic approach would require: acknowledging that Hamas cannot be wished away, pressuring Israel to define its long-term intentions, securing realistic commitments from regional partners, and making meaningful progress toward Palestinian statehood. As the international community grapples with what Russia called "a black day," the people of Gaza face a future where peace may be more elusive than ever, trapped between the rubble of war and the empty promises of a plan that offers ambition without strategy.

United States of America | Human Rights, Conflict, Politics | |