TEHRAN – President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza, presented by Washington as a blueprint for stability and reconstruction, has drawn significant criticism for functioning as political cover for Israel’s ongoing military campaign. 

Despite the October 10 ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, Israeli strikes and operations in Gaza have continued. This persistent violence undermines claims of de-escalation and suggests that the plan is being used to advance U.S. and Israeli strategic objectives rather than to genuinely protect Palestinian civilians.

A central feature of the U.S. diplomatic push has been its draft resolution at the UN Security Council, urging members to authorize a long-term international stabilization force (ISF) and establish a transitional governance arrangement. The United States has pressed for swift action, warning of dire consequences if negotiations stall. The proposal envisions a foreign security presence through 2027, with broad authority over Gaza’s borders, humanitarian corridors, and demilitarization efforts. Crucially, it sidelines the Palestinian Authority and excludes any representative Palestinian role during the transition.

One of the most controversial components of the plan is the creation of a “Board of Peace,” a transitional governing body intended to oversee Gaza’s administration and reconstruction. This board would supervise a “technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee” and would hold sweeping authority until externally defined conditions for “Palestinian reform” are met. The structure raises serious concerns about sovereignty and democratic legitimacy. It effectively places Gaza’s future under the supervision of an internationally imposed body rather than under Palestinian control. The design appears to centralize decision-making in the hands of external powers, aligning closely with U.S. and Israeli political objectives.

The economic dimension of the proposal, often described as the “Riviera Plan,” further reflects this approach. By envisioning Gaza as a future hub for tourism and investment, the plan reframes reconstruction as a commercial project rather than a political process grounded in rights and self-determination. Critics argue that such visions attempt to substitute economic promises for genuine liberation and gloss over the structural realities of occupation and blockade.

In contrast, Russia and China have articulated more balanced and sovereignty-focused positions within the UN. Both countries have rejected the idea of the Board of Peace and have opposed externally imposed governance arrangements that exclude Palestinians from shaping their own political future. Russia has proposed an alternative resolution calling for the UN Secretary-General to independently assess options for a stabilization force, while China has emphasized the primacy of Palestinian sovereignty, international law, and the need for a credible path toward statehood. Their stance provides an important counterweight to attempts to consolidate U.S. influence over Gaza’s postwar trajectory.

Taken together, the Trump plan appears less a genuine peace initiative and more a framework designed to entrench existing power structures while granting Israel and the United States substantial control over Gaza’s future. Any sustainable peace must center Palestinian rights, representation, and self-determination, not replace them with externally imposed mechanisms presented as diplomatic solutions.