Despite Donald Trump’s hyperbole that his 20-point peace plan to end the war in Gaza will create “eternal peace” in the Middle East, it could be doomed for the many of the same reasons that killed earlier ceasefire hopes.

The key sticking point in past ceasefire proposals has been the so-called “day after” in Gaza — the question of what will happen to the war-obliterated Palestinian enclave after Hamas releases the remaining Israeli hostages it has been holding for almost two years.

The last ceasefire, which lasted less than six weeks between January and March, fell apart after Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided he would not proceed to the second and third stages of the proposed deal.

It would have seen Israeli forces withdraw from Gaza and end the fighting permanently, setting the stage for the shattered territory to embark on a long rebuilding process.

But in that agreement, where exactly Israeli troops would withdraw to, who precisely would oversee Gaza’s rebuilding process, and what troops would provide security for the enclave were never clearly spelled out.

‘Board of Peace’

Trump’s new proposal finally provides details — in some cases, very specific ones.

Trump is keeping the biggest job for himself, as the chair of a so-called “Board of Peace” that would also include former British PM Tony Blair and other as-yet unnamed heads of state.

Palestinians would be involved at a “technocratic level,” making up a committee responsible for the day-to-day running of public services.

Notably,  there was no mention of a role for any UN agency, such as the UN Relief and Works Agency, which before the war was responsible for delivering much of Gaza’s schooling, health and other social services.

Hamas, and other militant groups in Gaza, would have to agree to disarm completely and its members could have no role in Gaza’s future government, though Israel says it would allow members who renounce violence to remain in the territory.

Until now, Hamas has refused Israel’s key demands — disarming and releasing hostages — because it has said there was no way to ensure Netanyahu wouldn’t break his word and resume fighting once hostages are returned, which is what happened in March.

Indeed, Netanyahu has repeatedly made it clear that he would continue fighting until Hamas was totally destroyed. Three days ago at the UN, he said Israel “must finish the job” in Gaza.

The presence of Trump, Blair and the heavy involvement of neighbouring Arab nations on the transitional board, and possibly as part of a military stabilization force, are likely meant to reassure Hamas that this time a deal will stick.

Broken ceasefires

But it is far from certain it will.

Israel signed a U.S.-brokered ceasefire with Lebanon in late 2024 after decimating the Iran-backed leadership of the militant group Hezbollah — only to be repeatedly accused of violating the ceasefire.

Indeed, Israeli forces remain in several regions of southern Lebanon in violation of the agreement and monitors report that more than 150 people have been killed in Israeli attacks since the truce took effect.

Crisis Group analyst Mairav Zonszein says the model proposed for Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza is similar to that of Lebanon.

“Israel has freedom of action and will only withdraw when Hamas disarms, which won’t happen,” she wrote on social media.

Trump’s plan calls for Israel to move out of Gaza City as soon as the hostages are released and that Israel “will not occupy or annex Gaza.” But it also says Israel can keep troops in significant swaths of the territory until that stabilization force has made sufficient progress at quelling any potential “terror” threat.

There is no timeline attached — meaning Israeli forces could conceivably remain in the territory for many years, something Hamas has repeatedly rejected.

“I think it’s a victory for Netanyahu,” said Marwa Maziat, professor of international relations and Israel studies at the University of Maryland.

The key points that Netanyhu’s government have been pushing — the release of the hostages, a demilitarized Gaza, an end to Hamas’s rule and a security perimeter within Gaza — are all part of Trump’s 20-point plan, she told CBC News.

Maziat says the only obvious concession Israel’s prime minister appears to be making is that there will be no forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, as many on Israel’s political right have been pushing for.

Netanyahu has also insisted that there be no role in Gaza for the Palestinian Authority (PA), which rules the occupied West Bank.

When Prime Minister Mark Carney joined other Western leaders last week in recognizing a Palestinian state comprising of Gaza and the West Bank, he said Canada believes the PA should be its government.

While Trump’s plan says the PA should ultimately take over in Gaza, it states that will only happen once it has “completed its reform program” — again, a sufficiently vague timeline to allow Netanhayu to argue that day will likely never come.

“The vast majority of Israelis have no faith that the PA leopard will change its spots,” Netanyahu told a news conference.

Erga Atad, a counter-terrorism researcher at Reichman University in Tel Aviv,  says that leaves the key question of who will run Gaza after Hamas unanswered.

“There is a need to have a new type of leadership. So the main question still remains. Who will be, who will take the leadership from this day on?” she said.

H.A. Hellyer of the London-based Royal United Services Institute, a military think-tank, says the Trump plan cuts Palestinians out of most of the key decisions about their future.

“Gaza would remain wholly under Israeli occupation, with an international trusteeship for certain matters. PA reforms may happen [but] there’s no accountability mechanism for ensuring a transfer of rule to it,” he wrote.

And Netanyhu also, pointedly, again rejected any chance Israel would ever agree to a Palestinian state — even though Trump’s plan holds out the faint hope that it could lie at the end of the process he’s laid out.

What happens next will largely depend on Hamas’s reaction. The group has said it will carefully consider all ceasefire proposals.

That could mean there will not be a quick yes or no, but days or weeks of discussions or clarifications.