Exclusive – The peace that Washington made… Can Trump impose it on Israel?

Abu Dhabi, UAE – The test of US President Donald Trump’s plan to end the war in Gaza is no longer tied to the existence of a political track, but rather to Washington’s ability to translate the plan into implementable arrangements on the ground, given Israel’s rejection of key parts of it. This test gains added significance following a joint statement issued by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia, in which the eight countries called on the United States to continue its active role in ensuring Israel’s commitment to the arrangements outlined in the Trump plan and preventing any obstruction of its implementation. The statement coincided with intensive US efforts in Cairo to advance the settlement process, at a time when Israel and Hamas remain at odds over security arrangements and the sequence of steps for implementing the plan.

From condemning Israel to demanding Washington’s intervention

The Arab and Islamic statement did not merely criticize the Israeli position. The eight countries considered Israel’s rejection of the roadmap to be undermining efforts to end the war and achieve lasting peace. Most significantly, the statement conveyed a direct message to Washington, urging its continued active engagement to ensure Israel’s compliance with the arrangements and prevent any obstruction of the plan’s implementation. Politically, this signifies that the signatory states do not view the United States simply as a mediator between the conflicting parties, but rather as the party best positioned to leverage its influence with Israel to advance the agreement. The list of signatories includes Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia, reflecting the broad regional support for the plan to end the war.

American plan clashes with Israeli conditions

The American roadmap is based on a series of gradual measures to end the war, including a ceasefire, the disarmament of Hamas and armed factions, a gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces, the establishment of new security and administrative arrangements in the Gaza Strip, and reconstruction.

But the main point of contention revolves around the sequence of these steps. Israel, according to statements and positions reported by international media, insists on the complete disarmament of Hamas before a full Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. In contrast, the American plan is based on a gradual approach that links progress in disarmament to the Israeli withdrawal and subsequent security arrangements. Thus, the disagreement is not only about the ultimate goal, but also about a more sensitive question: who implements first, and who provides guarantees to the other side?

Washington is moving from Cairo

In an effort to revive the stalled peace process, US officials and envoys have been active in Cairo, holding meetings with Egyptian, Qatari, and Turkish mediators, as well as contacts with representatives of Hamas. These moves come as part of US efforts to relaunch negotiations on implementing the Trump plan, amid ongoing disagreements over disarmament, Israeli withdrawal, and arrangements for governing the Gaza Strip. Cairo attaches particular importance to this process due to its role as a mediator, its direct contacts with various parties, its geographical location, and its direct connection to the Rafah crossing and the future of Gaza’s arrangements.

Trump’s toughest test

The political paradox in the current situation is that Washington finds itself facing a double test. On the one hand, it must convince Hamas to commit to the disarmament process and the security arrangements included in the plan. On the other hand, it faces the more delicate task of persuading the Israeli government to accept a phased withdrawal and adhere to the arrangements required by the American plan.

Here, the issue transforms from mere negotiations to end the war into a test of the US administration’s ability to leverage its influence with its closest allies in the region. If Trump succeeds in pushing the parties to implement the plan, Washington will bolster its image as the power capable of forging new security and political arrangements in the Middle East. However, if the plan remains stalled due to disagreements with Israel or the mediators’ inability to address the issue of Hamas’s weapons, the US administration may face a more difficult question regarding the limits of its influence and its capacity to translate its political initiatives into reality on the ground.

Israel and Hamas: The Guarantees Dilemma

Israel insists on security guarantees that would prevent Hamas from resuming military operations, while the movement demands reciprocal guarantees related to a cessation of hostilities and an Israeli withdrawal. Between these two conditions, Washington is working to establish a phased approach that would allow both sides to fulfill their commitments simultaneously. This is the most complex aspect of the plan, as its success hinges on the presence of an entity capable of monitoring implementation, verifying compliance, and preventing the collapse of the arrangements at the first sign of disagreement. The American plan includes a vision for deploying an international stabilization force to help maintain security and create the necessary conditions for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. However, the force’s composition, operational mechanisms, and deployment timeline remain issues requiring further agreement.

Why does the statement represent a turning point?

The significance of the Arab and Islamic statement lies in its shifting part of the responsibility for implementing the plan to Washington itself. The eight countries not only demanded that Israel accept the plan, but also called on the United States to use its role and influence to ensure its implementation. This presents the US administration with a delicate equation: Washington is the plan’s architect, Israel its most important military and political ally, Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey are key mediators, while Hamas remains the party expected to relinquish its military capabilities. Therefore, the plan’s success hinges on Washington’s ability to reconcile these conflicting interests into a unified course of action.

What will determine the success of the plan?

The upcoming test can be summarized in three main points:

First: The Israeli position
Will the Israeli government accept a phased withdrawal, or will it insist on the complete disarmament of Hamas before any withdrawal?

Second: Hamas’s weapons
Can a timetable and verification mechanism acceptable to Hamas, Israel, and the United States be agreed upon?

Third: International guarantees
Who will monitor the implementation of the agreement? And who will intervene if either party violates its commitments?

These questions will determine whether the roadmap can be translated from a political document into a reality on the ground.

Testing American influence

The available data does not yet indicate that Washington has decided to use maximum pressure tactics to force Israel to accept the plan, but the actions of Trump’s envoys and the message conveyed by the Arab and Islamic statement reveal that the US administration is facing increasing pressure to prove its ability to implement it. Therefore, the upcoming political battle will not only be about the future of the Gaza Strip; it will also test the limits of American influence in the Middle East.

If Washington succeeds in reaching a formula acceptable to both Israel and Hamas, and the withdrawal, disarmament, security arrangements, and reconstruction begin, it will have demonstrated its ability to manage one of the region’s most complex crises. However, if the plan remains hostage to disagreements between the parties, the recent Arab and Islamic statement may become a sign of a growing gap between what Washington can propose and what it can impose.

Ultimately, the question is no longer just: Will Trump’s plan succeed in ending the war? It has become: Does Washington have enough leverage to impose the peace it has proposed? This answer may determine not only the future of Gaza, but also the shape of the American role in the Middle East during the next stage.