President Donald Trump participates in a signing ceremony for a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas to end the war in Gaza during a summit of world leaders in Sharm El Sheikh on October 13, 2025. White House/Flickr.

The news of the release of hostages and a breakthrough for Gaza—one that could finally bring an end to Israel’s campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing, enable access for humanitarian aid, and initiate the gradual withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) from the strip—is cause for relief and cautious optimism. It also warrants reflection on what was distinctive, and seemingly effective, in President Trump’s approach to deal-making and diplomacy, particularly at a time when multilateral peacemaking has struggled.

This ceasefire agreement represents a significant, albeit long-overdue, achievement that should be welcomed by all and may well offer a plausible pathway to ending the horrific violence in Gaza. To be sure, considerable uncertainty remains about what will follow, and the ceasefire arrangement could easily unravel if either side fails to uphold its commitments. The 20-point plan is ambiguous, and skeptics rightly argue that it cannot, on its own, be considered a credible or comprehensive peace plan. It falls short of providing a clear and tangible framework to address the root causes of this eight-decade-long conflict or of outlining how Israelis and Palestinians might coexist peacefully and sustainably on this small and shared piece of land.

Trump’s capacity to bring about durable peace can only be assessed over the long term. In the meantime, however, it is worth examining what aspects of his approach, and that of his negotiating team, many of whom come from real estate deal-making backgrounds, enabled them to achieve what others, including former President Biden or the UN, could not. How do Trump’s peace efforts and his 20-point plan compare with the French–Saudi-led UN initiative and the recent wave of recognitions of Palestinian statehood by G7 and other countries? These initiatives, while diplomatically significant, have often been viewed as detached from realities on the ground, failing to shift the conflict dynamics between Israel and Hamas, unlike Trump’s recent efforts.

What does this moment tell us about peacemaking and diplomacy in today’s world? For some observers, the lesson from Trump’s success seems to be that the UN and multilateral diplomacy have become ineffective in addressing today’s conflicts and that the unilateral use of force, however brutal, remains the only way to create political pressure capable of generating peace. Trump’s ability to tactically exploit the threat or use of force, combined with shifting regional dynamics, allowed him to break a diplomatic impasse on Gaza by leveraging both Israeli escalation and Gulf states’ desire for stability to broker agreement on his 20-point-plan. Yet, contrary to perceptions that Trump sidelined multilateral efforts, regional and UN-anchored multilateral efforts were instrumental in shaping the content and direction of his 20-point plan, securing broad regional support, and remain critical to the plan’s long-term credibility and implementation.

The Role of Military Pressure and Regional Calculations

Trump’s Gaza ceasefire breakthrough relied heavily on the deliberate use or threat of coercive power to generate political momentum, shift regional calculations, and compel negotiation.

While reckless and in stark breach of international law, Israel’s attack on Doha on September 9th marked a decisive shift that paradoxically helped unlock the diplomatic impasse by altering the regional dynamics of the war. On one hand, the attack, which targeted Hamas operatives but also killed a Qatari internal security official, showed that Israel was prepared to escalate the cost of the conflict for regional actors, including those indirectly supporting Hamas. By doing so, the strike altered the calculus of these actors, underscoring the growing risks of such alignment. It thus presented Trump with an opportunity to solicit greater involvement from Gulf countries—and Türkiye—in pressuring Hamas to come to the negotiating table and agree to a deal largely favorable to Israel.

At the same time, the strikes seriously threatened the stability Gulf countries have long sought to preserve. This created an opening for Gulf capitals to convince Trump to rein in Netanyahu in response to what they viewed as a breach of Doha’s understanding with Washington and Jerusalem regarding its role as mediator. which he was increasingly aware that Netanyahu was endangering, Trump seized the moment to impose a red line and warn that “this has to stop.” Trump’s earlier permissiveness toward Israeli military action became a source of leverage: having let Netanyahu “off the leash” more than once granted Trump the credibility and means to pull him back and force his hand into a deal in ways no previous US president could.

By backing his threats with demonstrated resolve to use force in the region, Trump restored a measure of credibility to US diplomatic leverage. He does not shy away from issuing stark warnings—threatening that if Hamas rejected his deal, Israel would have his “full backing to finish the job.” Back in May, he warned Iran, “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing, the likes of which they have never seen before.” The subsequent joint Israeli–U.S. bombing of Iranian targets last June, while falling short of seriously degrading Tehran’s nuclear capabilities, helped reinforce the credibility of US threats by showing a willingness to follow through.

By contrast, this leverage is much harder to obtain for actors less comfortable issuing or acting on such threats due to legitimate concerns over the human costs of military action and the risk of escalation. Many in the region recall President Obama’s 2013 decision not to strike Syria after the Ghouta chemical attacks, despite his earlier “red line” warning—a moment that signaled to many that the United States, and the Western world more broadly, might be unwilling or unable to follow through on its threats. This ultimately eroded the credibility of its diplomacy and its ability to influence regional actors.

Since his return to the administration, Trump seems to have repositioned the US at the heart of Middle East dynamics. And although his reluctance to rein in Netanyahu sooner has cost thousands of lives across Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, many regional actors now believe he can be the guarantor of a new era of peace for the region.

Peace through Business and Personal Relationships 

A central feature of Trump’s approach to deal-making, which particularly resonates with Gulf leaders, is his integration of personal relationships with a transactional, business-oriented logic, a mindset he shares with his son-in-law and informal adviser, Jared Kushner. It comes as no surprise that, in addressing the Israel–Hamas conflict, Trump has largely bypassed career diplomats. Kushner, whose private equity firm Affinity Partners is heavily financed by Gulf sovereign wealth funds, cultivated strong personal ties across the Arab world while brokering the Abraham Accords. Through these relationships, Kushner recognized early on that Trump’s initial “Riviera plan” was a nonstarter for the Gulf states.

This pushed Kushner to persuade Trump to work on the 20-point plan, a framework designed to accommodate Gulf red lines while keeping Israel engaged. Kushner and Trump could not ignore the warnings issued by Emirati officials in response to threats from Netanyahu’s government to formally annex the West Bank—already well underway through expanding settlements—which risked pausing or derailing the Abraham Accords, Trump’s signature foreign-policy achievement of his first term. With Israel’s attack on Qatar further undermining Gulf stability, Trump’s personal and business interests in the region left him little choice but to recalibrate his pressure on Netanyahu through the 20-point plan to preserve his image as a guarantor of the Gulf’s prosperity and security.

Trump’s personal engagement in the negotiations, through Kushner, his special envoy Steve Witkoff, and his own direct contacts with regional leaders, arguably has lent greater credibility and leverage to his peace efforts than the more institutionalized, process-oriented approaches typical of contemporary UN diplomacy. This hands-on involvement has enabled his team to maintain sustained pressure on both Hamas and Netanyahu on the ground, a dynamic that could ultimately increase the likelihood that his peace efforts translate into tangible outcomes. However, Trump’s erratic temperament and shifting priorities cast doubt on his ability and willingness to maintain consistent engagement over the medium and long term.

The Enduring Role of Multilateral Diplomacy

Though often perceived as sidelined in efforts to put an end to the war in Gaza—an impression reinforced by Trump’s disdain for the UN—multilateral diplomacy was in fact instrumental in generating momentum ahead of the 20-point peace plan. UN-anchored diplomacy proved decisive in influencing both the content and the trajectory of this emerging framework, demonstrating the enduring power of collective engagement even in a context dominated by unilateralist tendencies.

The French–Saudi-led UN initiative that culminated in the New York Declaration in July, endorsed by an overwhelming majority of member states on September 12th, ahead of the UN General Assembly, crystallized an unprecedented international consensus on a political solution anchored in a revitalized two-state framework. Its strength lay precisely in its multilateral character, uniting Western allies traditionally aligned with Israel—such as the United Kingdom, France, and Canada—with influential Arab and Muslim nations including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Türkiye, and Indonesia. Together, they advanced a coherent, balanced, and pragmatic set of steps for the “day after” that would empower a sovereign, economically viable Palestinian state to coexist alongside Israel in peace and security. This included proposals for an international/regional stabilization mission, transitional governance mechanisms, Gaza’s rehabilitation, and Israel’s regional integration.

The multilateral negotiations and maneuvering that led to this outcome helped align Arab and Muslim states on a relatively unified stance toward Trump. This dynamism was compounded by the wave of recognitions of Palestinian statehood during the UN General Assembly, including by G7 members France, the United Kingdom, and Canada, as well as Australia and several European states. This displayed like never before a global consensus on an end to the war and a credible political horizon for Palestinian self-governance. Confronted with this growing collective dynamic as he entered the UN halls, Trump couldn’t ignore the isolation of Israel and the US. As he reportedly told Netanyahu in a pointed phone call after the General Assembly, “Israel cannot fight the world, Bibi,” a line that captures Trump’s responsiveness to mounting international—and regional—pressure.

Notably, Trump chose to unveil his 20-point plan not only in the context of the General Assembly in New York but also as the outcome of a collective understanding he had built with a broad range of stakeholders. The 20-point plan was first presented to a group of Arab and Muslim countries, including Pakistan, Turkey, and Indonesia. This suggests he recognized that any credible US peace efforts needed to be embedded within a multilateral logic, in marked contrast to his previous, unilateral proposals for Gaza. The clearest shift in Trump’s latest 20-point plan is its pledge that “no one will be forced to leave Gaza” and that those who choose to leave may return—a notable reversal from his earlier “Riviera plans,” which drew intense criticism for advocating the de facto forced displacement of Palestinians from the territory.

The French–Saudi-led UN initiative thus helped solidify consensus around key proposals that Trump ultimately had to reflect in his 20-point plan to secure regional endorsement, especially from Arab and Muslim states. By presenting a coordinated, unified front, these multilateral diplomatic efforts provided leverage that fragmented bilateral channels could not, exerting a degree of influence over Trump and encouraging him to move toward a more sustainable plan anchored in a political horizon for Palestinian self-governance—or, at the very least, to refrain from rejecting this path altogether. A remarkable moment at the October 13th Sharm el-Sheikh summit to end the war in Gaza was the warm handshake between Trump and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas’s invitation to the summit further signaled that, in his effort to embed his peace plan within a regional and multilateral dynamic, Trump was willing to acquiesce to Arab and Muslim stakeholders’ insistence on the Palestinian leader’s presence if it meant showcasing the region’s full endorsement of his plan.

These developments demonstrate that, even in a context where the United States was the only actor capable of pressuring Netanyahu to halt the fighting, diplomatic engagement and pressure under the auspices of the UN and the Arab League played an indispensable role in shaping the breakthrough for Gaza and the trajectory of Trump’s peace plan.

Long-Term Challenges and Alternative Frameworks

Inherent to Trump’s approach to deal-making is the imperative of getting to “yes” first, without engaging with the details of what a long-term peace agreement would entail. Critically, his plan does not even attempt to address the underlying roots of the conflict, including occupation, denial of self-determination, and dispossession. The plan refers only to the people of Gaza, with no explicit mention of the West Bank, despite its centrality to Palestine’s political future and to Gaza’s economic and social development. While there is a vague nod to Palestinian self-determination or statehood, it is framed merely as an aspiration rather than a concrete goal of the process, offering only a tenuous gesture toward a political horizon. The very strategic ambiguity that enabled the 20-point plan to unite all stakeholders and achieve consensus on the first phase will likely become a source of friction as the process moves into subsequent

This is precisely where creative and pragmatic initiatives advanced by Israelis and Palestinians, such as “A Land for All: Two States, One Homeland,” become indispensable. Such proposals offer detailed, realistic pathways for a lasting two-state solution, addressing the most complex issues: borders, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, and security. Far from being abstract exercises, they represent the only pragmatic route toward ending the conflict and ensuring regional peace and stability.

At this critical moment, and now that the hostages have been released, sustaining momentum on short-term measures, such as a ceasefire, humanitarian support, and reconstruction, is essential. However, these actions need to be explicitly linked to the deliberate construction of the long-term “other side of the bridge” toward a just and enduring peace. While the Trump administration is unlikely to provide much space for engagement with these visions, this is precisely where international and regional actors, through sustained multilateral diplomacy, can add value by integrating these alternative proposals into the ongoing peacemaking process.

Emmanuelle Cousin serves as Special Adviser to Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein at the International Peace Institute (IPI), leading IPI’s mediation work in the Middle East through confidential Track 1.5 formats connecting Israeli and Palestinian civil society with diplomats and policy experts.