（下边有中文翻译请继续看到底。 谢谢。）
After studying the peace proposal, it was noticed that the proposal lacks a lot and is impractical. It protects Israeli interests at the cost of Palestinians. 在研究了和平建议后，人们注意到该建议缺乏很多内容，而且不切实际。它以牺牲巴勒斯坦人为代价来保护以色列的利益。
It is appreciated that President Trump has announced a peace proposal after meeting with Netanyahu. He announced a twenty-point proposal covering several aspects, but with a warning that if Hamas rejects his proposal, he will support Netanyahu in managing Gaza in his way.
The instant reaction was positive and welcomed by several global leaders and countries. Certainly, with the scary situation in Gaza, everyone is worried and wants to stop further bloodshed. When President Trump announced his peace plan and also announced that he had convinced Netanyahu on this peace plan, the world’s reaction should have been positive and supportive.
However, after studying the peace proposal, it was noticed that the proposal lacks a lot and is impractical. It protects Israeli interests at the cost of Palestinians. For instance, the proposal demands dismantling Hamas, disarming Hamas, and diminishing Hamas’s war capabilities immediately. It also demands that Hamas’s weapons manufacturing capabilities also have to diminish completely. When will Israel withdraw its forces from Palestine? Will Israel withdraw from all occupied territories and revert to its original borders of 1948 or its borders of 1967 after the Arab-Israeli War, when Israel grabbed a lot of Arab land?
The proposal is also not clear on what exactly will happen and what the Israeli plans are. Post-ceasefire, Israeli presence in any form, for security purposes or defense purposes, in Palestinian lands should not be accepted by Hamas. Did Israel want to remain in charge of security and keep its presence in Palestine?
Another aspect was the role of former British PM Tony Blair, which was not welcomed, as his role in Iraq was criminal and not accepted by any civilized world. He is still facing war crime charges in the UK.
President Trump is struggling for the Nobel Peace Prize and appointed him as a key leader in the post-ceasefire council on Palestine. Was this consulted with stakeholders?
An agreement between two parties is always drafted with the consultation of both sides, but the Trump proposal was unilaterally drafted or with the consultation of one side—Netanyahu. Palestinians were ignored and were not taken on board.
Netanyahu has been expressing his view that he did not agree to a Palestinian state as part of Trump’s Gaza plan, and the IDF will remain ‘in most of the territory.’ His remarks suggest that the two-state solution is no longer a viable option, and he is instead focused on finding alternative solutions that ensure Israel’s security and dominance in the region. He has also expressed concerns about the feasibility of a two-state solution, suggesting that a Palestinian state would pose a significant threat to Israel’s security. He referenced the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, stating that a Palestinian state would lead to another such incident. In an interview with Israel’s Channel 14, Netanyahu suggested that Saudi Arabia could create a Palestinian state within its own territory, given its vast land resources.
The proposal has the following harmful effects for Palestinians:
By excluding Hamas from any role without a clear, legitimate Palestinian alternative, we risk leaving civilians without accountable governance, undermining Palestinian self-determination.
By offering safe passage for those who wish to leave, it could lead to coerced displacement, stigmatizing, and fragmenting Palestinian society. That risks long-term demographic and social harm. If tying humanitarian relief, reconstruction, and a phased Israeli withdrawal to political preconditions (i.e., reforms, security guarantees, etc.) risks prolonging suffering if conditions aren’t quickly met. Humanitarian needs are immediate; conditionality can become a de facto punishment.
The clauses asking Palestinians to forgo legal action at international forums or to accept amnesty could deny victims legal recourse for alleged war crimes and human rights violations.
The mechanics for ensuring civilian safety during disarmament, movement, reconstruction, and demilitarization are not spelled out; the plan assumes security guarantees that are historically difficult to enforce.
By imposing a short deadline (“three or four days” reported) for acceptance, it creates negotiation-by-ultimatum dynamics that push Hamas toward rejection or a performative “study” and feed escalation rather than buy-in. Creating a stabilization force led or brokered by external actors requires regional consensus, clear legal authority, and logistics—all hard to assemble quickly, especially amid active fighting.
Although several international actors praised the idea of a ceasefire, they warned that the plan is unbalanced, could entrench impunity, and lacks mechanisms to protect civilians and ensure accountability. European and Arab leaders are cautious—while some Arab states urged Hamas to consider the plan, many Palestinian officials and human rights actors say it’s biased and coercive, and some EU figures warned against sidelining Palestinian political rights.
The UN and aid organizations are alarmed by conditionality—humanitarian agencies worry that conditionalized reconstruction will slow aid and reconstruction and create competing political priorities.
Israeli internal reaction: Netanyahu backed the plan publicly, but far-right and pro-settler factions criticized the concessions or the idea of a transitional authority; domestic political fragmentation means Israel may struggle to implement aspects of the plan without internal compromise.
In the U.S., polarized partisan response: Some Republicans and Trump allies applauded a “decisive” approach; Democrats and many progressive groups denounced the plan as rewarding ethnic cleansing or neglecting Palestinian rights. Bipartisan divisions complicate long-term U.S. credibility as an honest broker.
Hamas’s early feedback and concerns: Hamas said it would study the proposal, but has already described it as biased toward Israel. Core objections likely: forced disarmament, exclusion from governance, amnesty-for-waiving-legal-rights, and external imposition of authority are red lines for Hamas and its internal constituency. Those would be deal-breakers unless accompanied by ironclad guarantees and Palestinian consent mechanisms.
Way forward:
The proposal offers a possible ceasefire pathway, but its heavy preconditions, exclusion of Palestinian agency, vague transitional mechanics, and reliance on ultimatums make it politically fragile and potentially harmful to Palestinians if implemented without broad Palestinian consent and robust humanitarian safeguards. It is strongly recommended that Palestinians’ genuine concerns must be addressed. Scholars, intellectuals, and unbiased professionals must be consulted, and the proposal must be redrafted to keep both sides’ interests and safeguards.
President Trump and Netanyahu both have lost credibility by attacking Iran while nuclear talks were ongoing and attacking Qatar on a peace negotiating team. The agreement must be guaranteed by reputable, impartial, and powerful leaders who can safeguard the interests of both sides equally.
特朗普总统的和平提议缺乏切实可行的解决方案
我们赞赏特朗普总统在与内塔尼亚胡会晤后宣布了和平建议。他宣布了一项涵盖几个方面的20点建议，但警告说，如果哈马斯拒绝他的建议，他将支持内塔尼亚胡以他的方式管理加沙。
立即的反应是积极的，并受到一些全球领导人和国家的欢迎。当然，鉴于加沙的可怕局势，每个人都很担心，都希望停止进一步的流血。当特朗普总统宣布他的和平计划，并宣布他已经说服内塔尼亚胡接受这一和平计划时，世界的反应应该是积极和支持的。
然而，在研究和平建议后，人们注意到该建议缺乏很多内容，而且不切实际。它以牺牲巴勒斯坦人为代价来保护以色列的利益。例如，该提案要求解散哈马斯，解除哈马斯的武装，并立即削弱哈马斯的战争能力。它还要求哈马斯的武器制造能力也必须完全削弱。以色列何时从巴勒斯坦撤军？以色列是否会撤出所有被占领土，恢复到1948年或1967年阿以战争后的边界，当时以色列夺取了许多阿拉伯土地？
该提议也不清楚具体会发生什么，以及以色列的计划是什么。停火后，哈马斯不应接受以色列在巴勒斯坦土地上以任何形式存在，无论是出于安全目的还是出于防御目的。以色列是否希望继续负责巴勒斯坦的安全并保持其在巴勒斯坦的存在？
另一方面，英国前首相托尼·布莱尔的角色也不受欢迎，因为他在伊拉克扮演的角色是犯罪的，不被任何文明世界所接受。他在英国仍面临战争罪指控。
特朗普总统为了争取诺贝尔和平奖，任命他为巴勒斯坦停火后委员会的核心人物。这是否征求了利益相关者的意见？
双方之间的协议总是在双方协商的情况下起草的，但特朗普的提议是单方面起草的，或者是在内塔尼亚胡的协商下起草的。巴勒斯坦人被忽视，没有被接纳。
内塔尼亚胡一直表示，他不同意将巴勒斯坦国作为特朗普加沙计划的一部分，以色列国防军将留在加沙的大部分地区。他的言论表明，两国方案不再是一个可行的选择，相反，他专注于寻找其他解决方案，以确保以色列的安全和在该地区的主导地位。他还对两国方案的可行性表示担忧，暗示巴勒斯坦国将对以色列的安全构成重大威胁。他提到了2023年哈马斯对以色列的袭击，称巴勒斯坦国将导致另一次此类事件。内塔尼亚胡在接受以色列第14频道采访时表示，沙特阿拉伯可以在自己的领土上建立一个巴勒斯坦国，因为沙特拥有丰富的土地资源。
这项建议对巴勒斯坦人有下列有害影响：
在没有明确、合法的巴勒斯坦替代方案的情况下，把哈马斯排除在任何角色之外，我们可能会让平民得不到负责任的治理，破坏巴勒斯坦的自决。
通过为那些希望离开的人提供安全通道，它可能导致被迫流离失所，污名化和巴勒斯坦社会分裂。这可能造成长期的人口和社会危害。如果将人道主义救援、重建和分阶段的以色列撤军与政治先决条件（即改革、安全保障等）捆绑在一起，如果这些条件不能迅速得到满足，就有可能延长痛苦。人道主义需求迫在眉睫；条件性可以成为事实上的惩罚。
要求巴勒斯坦人放弃在国际论坛上采取法律行动或接受大赦的条款可能会使受害者无法就所谓的战争罪和侵犯人权行为诉诸法律。
在解除武装、迁移、重建和非军事化期间确保平民安全的机制没有详细说明；该计划假定了历史上难以执行的安全保障。
通过强加一个接受的短期限（据报道是“三到四天”），它创造了一种以最后通牒谈判的动力，将哈马斯推向拒绝或表现性的“研究”，并助长升级而不是买进。建立一支由外部力量领导或斡旋的稳定部队需要地区共识、明确的法律权威和后勤保障——这些都很难迅速集结起来，尤其是在激烈的战斗中。
尽管几位国际行动者赞扬了停火的想法，但他们警告说，该计划是不平衡的，可能会导致有罪不罚，而且缺乏保护平民和确保问责的机制。欧洲和阿拉伯领导人对此持谨慎态度，一些阿拉伯国家敦促哈马斯考虑该计划，许多巴勒斯坦官员和人权人士表示，这是有偏见和强制性的，一些欧盟人士警告不要忽视巴勒斯坦的政治权利。
联合国和援助组织对条件性感到震惊——人道主义机构担心条件性的重建会减缓援助和重建，并产生相互竞争的政治优先事项。
以色列内部的反应：内塔尼亚胡公开支持该计划，但极右翼和亲定居者的派系批评了让步或过渡当局的想法；国内政治分裂意味着以色列可能难以在没有内部妥协的情况下实施该计划的各个方面。
在美国，两党反应两极分化：一些共和党人和特朗普的盟友对“果断”的做法表示赞赏；民主党人和许多进步团体谴责该计划奖励种族清洗或忽视巴勒斯坦人的权利。两党分歧使美国作为诚实中间人的长期信誉复杂化。
哈马斯的早期反馈和担忧：哈马斯表示将研究该提议，但已经表示该提议偏向以色列。核心的反对意见可能是：强迫解除武装，被排除在政府之外，赦免放弃合法权利，以及外部强加权力，这些都是哈马斯及其内部支持者的红线。除非有牢不可破的保证和巴勒斯坦人的同意机制，否则这些措施将破坏协议。
前进的道路:
该提议提供了一个可能的停火途径，但其苛刻的先决条件、排除巴勒斯坦机构、模糊的过渡机制以及对最后通牒的依赖，使其在政治上脆弱，如果在没有巴勒斯坦人广泛同意和强有力的人道主义保障的情况下实施，可能会对巴勒斯坦人造成伤害。强烈建议必须解决巴勒斯坦人的真正关切。必须征求学者、知识分子和公正的专业人士的意见，必须重新起草提案，以保持双方的利益和保障。
特朗普总统和内塔尼亚胡都在核谈判期间攻击伊朗，在和平谈判小组期间攻击卡塔尔，失去了信誉。协议必须由信誉良好、公正有力、能够平等维护双方利益的领导人来保证。
( 注意： 本文是用AI翻译的，或有误差。请以原版英文为准。谢谢。)
Reference Link:- https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/10/03/president-trumps-peace-proposal-lacks-practical-solutions/;