As Donald Trump, Israel and other powerful countries advance a Gaza peace plan without Palestinian involvement, how much peace can we expect in the region? The Gaza peace plan, formally the Comprehensive Plan, was launched in late 2025 to end the Gaza conflict and ease the wider regional crisis. Led by U.S.

President Donald Trump, the agreement between Israel and Hamas took effect on October 10, 2025 and was endorsed by the UN Security Council on November 17. Three months later, the ongoing “peace” efforts in Gaza are under scrutiny. Despite the agreement, violence continued.

UNRWA reported airstrikes, shelling and gunfire across Gaza in early December 2025, particularly near the so-called “Yellow Line,” resulting in further casualties. According to OCHA (Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs), 379 Palestinians have been killed and nearly a thousand injured since the ceasefire took effect, with hundreds of bodies recovered from the rubble. Such violations are not unprecedented.

The ceasefire violations in September 2023, with accusations from both Hamas and Israel, resulted in hundreds of deaths in the region. Similarly, after the January 2025 ceasefire and completion of the first phase of a three-stage plan, Israel launched surprise airstrikes on Gaza on the 18th of March, citing Hamas’s refusal to release hostages and extend the ceasefire. This history raises an important question: what kind of peace is possible when those most affected are excluded from shaping it?

Dr. Mike Berry, a media researcher from Cardiff University’s School of Journalism says that there are some key issues with this peace framework. “What’s most shocking is the lack of any Palestinian input into the whole process that’s supposed to be about managing Palestinians lives,” he says. The plan was met with support from many countries, including France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Spain, the UAE, Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

The State of Palestine was not involved in the negotiations, although the governing Palestinian Authority expressed support for the deal. Dr. Mike says, “The nature of some of the people on the board is very problematic.

People like President Putin, who you wouldn’t necessarily put on a board intended to be related to peace.” He also warns that the current approach appears to abandon decades of international consensus rooted in international law and the two-state solution. “There’s been a very long-term international consensus on how you deal with the Israel- Palestine conflict based on the idea of the two-state solution,” Dr. Mike says. He adds that this framework is “embodied in international law and many, many UN resolutions.” Without it, he says that peace efforts risk entrenching the conflict rather than resolving it. “I imagine the conflict will just grind on.” With respect to the current demilitarisation and rebuilding plan, it lacks concrete provisions for a single Palestinian state encompassing both the West Bank and Gaza, instead focusing on interim governance of Gaza alone.

Many experts including Dr. Mike believe that Palestinians would not see Gaza as separate from the West Bank. Moreover, polling and public debate within Israel indicate significant support for the transfer of Palestinians from Gaza.

But, according to former Israeli negotiator Daniel Levy, the Israeli government is more interested in maintaining settlements in the West Bank rather than coming to a long-term solution. Dr. Mike also refers to his core research area and says that the Palestinian perspective has not been featured prominently in Western news accounts. “The Israeli perspective dominates the news, while the Palestinian view of resisting military occupation is largely marginalized.” The future peace and stability of Gaza’s residents remains uncertain.

But Dr. Mike says that he is clearly skeptical in the short to medium-term, primarily due to the current framework. He says that any agreement needs to be based within international law. “International law is under unprecedented strain and needs to be strengthened and supported.” The second phase of the plan has been underway since its announcement on 14 January 2026.

This phase marks a shift from the initial ceasefire to demilitarisation, technocratic governance, and reconstruction.