The Trump-Netanyahu Gambit: Deconstructing the “Board of Peace” and the High-Stakes Ultimatum to Hamas 

In a high-stakes announcement in September 2025, former President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented a 20-point peace framework for Gaza, centering on a three-pillar approach: an immediate ceasefire and hostage-prisoner exchange, the complete removal of Hamas from governance, and a vaguely defined path toward eventual Palestinian statehood. The unorthodox plan proposes a “Board of Peace,” chaired by Trump, to oversee Gaza’s transition, strategically using ambiguity in its details to make the proposal palatable to both Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition and international partners.

The presentation served as a public ultimatum to Hamas, warning that its rejection would trigger a full-scale Israeli military operation with full US backing, thereby pressuring the group to accept terms that would effectively end its political control or face devastating consequences.

The Trump-Netanyahu Gambit: Deconstructing the “Board of Peace” and the High-Stakes Ultimatum to Hamas 

In a high-drama press conference that felt like a flashback to a previous era, former President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood shoulder-to-shoulder, not just reviving a potent political alliance but unfurling what they termed a historic “20-point plan” for Gaza. The date was September 29, 2025, and the message was less an invitation and more an ultimatum: Hamas must accept this framework, or face the full, unbridled force of an Israeli military operation with unequivocal American backing. 

The headlines capture the moment, but the substance lies in the nuances—the calculated ambiguities, the seismic shifts in position, and the profound questions about what happens next. This isn’t merely a peace plan; it’s a high-stakes geopolitical gambit designed to reshape the Middle East and redefine the legacies of the two men at its center. 

From Gaza “Riviera” to “Board of Peace”: The Evolution of a Strategy 

To understand the significance of this proposal, one must recall its predecessor. Earlier in 2025, Trump had floated a vision of a Gaza “Riviera”—a plan widely interpreted as a blueprint for the mass expulsion of Palestinians and the redevelopment of the strip for Israeli benefit. That plan was a non-starter for the international community and Arab nations essential to any lasting solution. 

The new 20-point framework, therefore, represents a significant, pragmatic pivot. It discards the overtly incendiary language of displacement in favor of a structure that, on the surface, aligns more closely with long-standing international demands: an end to hostilities, a release of hostages, and massive humanitarian aid. 

The most characteristically Trumpian element is the proposed “Board of Peace,” a governing body that would oversee the plan’s implementation with Trump himself as chairman. This move, while unorthodox, is strategically brilliant from his perspective. It places him squarely at the center of a world-stage negotiation, acting as a de facto governor of Gaza and bypassing traditional diplomatic channels. The reported interest of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair adds a layer of international credibility, harkening back to his role as Quartet envoy. 

This board is the plan’s linchpin. It proposes to fill the vacuum of power left by Hamas’s removal, a problem that has plagued every post-war discussion. By creating an externally-led transitional authority, the plan attempts to sidestep the immediate, intractable question of who should rule Gaza next—the Palestinian Authority, Israel, or a coalition of Arab states. 

The Three Pillars of the Proposal: A Closer Look at the 20 Points 

While the full text hasn’t been published, the broad strokes reveal a three-phase approach built on mutual, sequential obligations. 

1. The Immediate Ceasefire and Humanitarian Exchange: The plan demands a complete end to military operations, contingent on Hamas releasing all Israeli hostages. In return, Israel would agree to the immediate and massive delivery of aid to Gaza’s devastated population and the release of an unspecified number of Palestinian prisoners. This is a classic quid pro quo, but its success hinges on trust that simply doesn’t exist. The timing and verification of these actions would be a negotiation in itself, a minefield of potential delays and accusations of bad faith.
2. The Governance Dilemma: The Forced Exit of Hamas This is the plan’s most non-negotiable and most challenging component. The framework explicitly states that Hamas will have “no role in governing Gaza.” For Israel and the US, this is the entire point of the war. For Hamas, it is an existential threat. Accepting this clause would mean the militant group agreeing to its own political irrelevance, a near-impossible demand for a organization that has ruled Gaza for nearly two decades and views armed resistance as its core identity.
3. The Long-Term Horizon: A Glimmer of Statehood? Perhaps the most strategically ambiguous part of the plan is its handling of the Palestinian future. It “leaves the door open for an eventual Palestinian state.” This deliberate vagueness is what allows Netanyahu to sell the plan to his fragile coalition, which includes far-right ministers who would immediately bolt from the government at the mention of a definitive two-state solution. Simultaneously, it gives just enough hope for Arab nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar to potentially pressure Hamas, suggesting that a broader regional peace, including normalization with Israel, could follow.

The Calculated Ambiguity: A Feature, Not a Bug 

As analysis correctly points out, the plan is long on principles and short on details. Some clauses are merely a single sentence. This is not an oversight; it is the core of its political viability. 

• For Netanyahu, he can frame this not as a final deal, but as a “test for Hamas.” He can tell his right-wing base that he has maintained US support and secured a framework that demands Hamas’s surrender without making concrete concessions on Palestinian statehood. If Hamas rejects it, as he likely expects, he has a green light from Trump to “finish the job.” 

• For Trump, the ambiguity allows him to play the dealmaker. He has secured a public agreement from Netanyahu on a set of principles, a tangible achievement he can tout. The vague outlines mean he can mediate the subsequent “real negotiations,” positioning himself as the indispensable man. 

• For Hamas, the lack of detail is a major problem. They are being asked to agree to their own dissolution without a clear picture of what comes next. Who comprises the rest of the “Board of Peace”? What are the security arrangements? What is the timeline for Israeli troop withdrawals? The plan asks them to capitulate on faith. 

The Ultimatum and the Path Ahead 

The backdrop to this entire announcement is the ominous warning from both leaders. Netanyahu’s threat that Israel will “finish the job” and Trump’s promise of “full US backing” create a binary choice for Hamas: accept the framework or face annihilation. 

This places immense pressure on Hamas’s leadership in Doha. They will now be subjected to a global campaign, led by the US and amplified by Arab mediators, to accept the plan as the only way to stop the bloodshed and rebuild Gaza. Their decision will reveal their true priorities: is the survival of the movement, even in a diminished political capacity, more important than its continued control over the strip? 

The international community, weary of the conflict, will likely rally around the plan as the only game in town. However, the real battle may just be beginning. If Hamas accepts in principle, the world will then witness the even more difficult task of negotiating the details—a process where the 20-point plan’ polite ambiguities will collide with the harsh realities of one of the world’s most intractable conflicts. The “Board of Peace” may find that drawing up a framework was the easy part; building the peace itself is where the true challenge lies.