The administration of former U.S. President Donald Trump, via special envoy Steve Witkoff, announced Wednesday the commencement of the second phase of a controversial 20-point plan aimed at resolving the Gaza conflict. The declaration, disseminated on the platform X, outlines a transition from a fragile ceasefire to a strategy involving demilitarization, a technocratic form of governance and reconstruction efforts.
The core of the second phase involves the establishment of a Palestinian transitional administration in the Gaza Strip and the creation of a National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG). Witkoff stressed the expectation of “complete demilitarization” and a prioritized reconstruction program, attaching stringent conditions to the process. He explicitly demanded Hamas’s “unconditional fulfillment of its obligations, including the immediate return of the remaining hostages” warning of “grave consequences” should those demands not be met.
The rollout of this next phase arrives against a backdrop of escalating concerns regarding the effectiveness and humanitarian impact of the initial ceasefire, which has been described as “brittle” by observers. UNICEF’s recent report details the deaths of approximately one hundred Palestinian children since the ceasefire began, highlighting the ongoing challenges in ensuring civilian safety. This figure starkly contrasts with the declared aims of the plan.
The announcement also draws attention to Israel’s recent actions which have severely hampered aid delivery. At the beginning of the year, Israel revoked licenses for assistance from 37 international organizations working within Gaza, a move drawing condemnation from international bodies. The UN General Assembly President, Annalena Baerbock and the Red Cross have recently urged Israel to significantly improve access for vital humanitarian aid, a plea that appears to be largely unheeded, fueling criticism of the plan’s feasibility and the potential for it to exacerbate the existing crisis.
Critics are already questioning the viability of imposing a technocratic governance model on a region saturated with political and historical grievances, particularly given the lack of Palestinian representation in defining its structure. The reliance on external conditions and the threat of punitive measures raises concerns regarding the plan’s potential to be perceived as a coercive tool rather than a genuine pathway toward lasting peace and stability. The U.S. role in dictating terms and seemingly bypassing established diplomatic channels is also facing scrutiny, with some analysts suggesting it risks undermining international efforts aimed at resolving the conflict.