As tensions rise over the recent peace proposal from U.S. President Donald Trump, questions linger regarding the future of Palestinian leadership. Trump’s 20-point plan, presented on September 29, urges the Hamas leadership to accept terms that many analysts believe might not receive approval from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s cabinet. The deal includes conditional references to Palestinian self-determination but lacks clarity on its implementation.
Trump announced that Netanyahu had agreed to the terms, which include a statement suggesting that Palestinian self-determination could be realized if specific conditions are met. These include the advancement of Gaza redevelopment and the reform of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Yet, Netanyahu’s subsequent declaration indicated otherwise. He asserted on social media that no commitment to a Palestinian state was included in the agreement and that Israel would “forcibly resist” such an outcome. This contradiction raises doubts about the viability of Trump’s plan.
Hamas negotiators are also faced with the stipulation that their organization must disband and disarm, effectively excluding them from any governance role in Gaza or a future Palestinian state. In the West Bank, Fatah, which leads the PA, has seen a significant decline in support, with a recent poll indicating that only 6% of Palestinians would vote for PA President Mahmoud Abbas, now 89 years old. The PA has been plagued by corruption scandals and a lack of effective leadership, suggesting that a new generation of leaders is essential for a credible government.
One prominent figure who has garnered support among Palestinians is Marwan Barghouti, currently serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison. Often referred to as “Palestine’s Mandela,” Barghouti is respected across both secular and Islamist factions. His preference for peaceful resistance contrasts with his acknowledgment of the necessity for violence in certain contexts. Former Israeli intelligence chief Ami Ayalon suggested that releasing Barghouti could facilitate constructive negotiations.
Nevertheless, the current leadership appears resistant to his release. Leonie Fleischmann, a Middle East conflict expert from City St Georges, University of London, noted that the PA has consistently opposed Barghouti’s release in prisoner swap discussions. Netanyahu, in response to Barghouti’s op-ed published in the New York Times, dismissed the notion of Barghouti as a legitimate Palestinian leader.
The dynamics of representation were further complicated during the recent United Nations General Assembly meeting, where PA representatives were absent due to U.S. visa cancellations. This exclusion reflects a broader trend of undermining the PA’s ability to effectively represent Palestinian interests. Anne Irfan, a historian at University College London, highlighted that the PA was established through the Oslo Accords, which have historically favored Israel while limiting Palestinian self-governance.
Despite the criticisms, Trump’s peace proposal does offer some significant concessions. The deal aims to halt violence and restore aid flow to Gaza, with oversight from the United Nations and the Red Crescent, rather than the discredited Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Israel has also committed not to annex Gaza or the West Bank, ensuring that no individuals would be forcibly displaced. Additionally, Hamas members who surrender their weapons and renounce violence would receive amnesty.
Analysts like Julie Norman argue that Hamas should consider accepting the deal. The alternative, she warns, could lead to Israel being given a mandate to “finish the job” in Gaza, a sentiment echoed by many Gazans who are desperate for an end to the violence.
A regional perspective adds another layer to the situation. Scott Lucas, an expert in Middle East politics at University College Dublin, noted that Israel’s Arab neighbors seem eager for a resolution to the conflict. Economic incentives for normalization with Israel and the reconstruction of Gaza are significant motivators. However, regional leaders must navigate the sentiments of their own populations, who largely support the Palestinian cause. Ending violence in Gaza could alleviate these tensions and foster a more stable environment.
As the world watches the unfolding situation, the future of Palestinian leadership remains uncertain. The complex interplay of national and international interests continues to shape the realities on the ground, and the prospects for a cohesive and effective Palestinian government are increasingly pressing.
