While President Trump’s 20-point plan is explicit about who will not govern post-war Gaza—Hamas—it is conspicuously silent on who will. This critical question of future governance is the largest unanswered variable in a proposal focused primarily on ending the immediate military conflict.
The plan’s success hinges on Hamas’s surrender, which would create an immediate power vacuum. The text offers no clear successor. Options range from the return of the internationally recognized but domestically weak Palestinian Authority, to an interim administration overseen by Arab nations, or even a period of direct Israeli security control.
Each option is fraught with problems. The Palestinian Authority has little legitimacy in Gaza. Arab nations may be unwilling to take on the burden of governing a devastated territory. And continued Israeli security control would be seen by Palestinians and the world as a reoccupation, likely fueling future resistance.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence on maintaining overall security control while rejecting Palestinian statehood further muddies the waters. It suggests a vision of a demilitarized Gaza that is politically subordinate to Israel, a non-starter for any long-term peace.
By focusing intensely on the “day of” ceasefire and disarmament, the plan risks failing on the “day after.” Without a clear, viable, and agreed-upon vision for who will govern Gaza, an end to the current war may only be a prelude to the next phase of chaos and conflict.