The Trump-Netanyahu Gaza Peace Plan: A Deep Dive into its Diplomatic Ambitions, Geopolitical Ramifications, and Implications for Regional and Global Stability, with a Focus on Singapore’s Stakes.
Abstract
This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the 20-point peace plan for Gaza jointly announced by President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Emerging from a uniquely transactional and bilateral diplomatic approach, the plan aimed for an immediate cessation of hostilities, a structured prisoner/hostage exchange, and the establishment of a novel governance structure for Gaza. We dissect the core provisions of the plan, examine its departure from traditional Middle East peace frameworks, and critically evaluate the diverse reactions from key regional and international stakeholders, ranging from conditional acceptance to outright rejection. The paper further explores the geopolitical ramifications of such a proposal, particularly its potential to reshape the conflict landscape, US foreign policy in the region, and the delicate balance of power among Arab states. Finally, it dedicates significant attention to the often-overlooked but crucial indirect implications for distant yet globally interconnected nations like Singapore, analyzing the economic, security, and diplomatic spillover effects of intensified or resolved conflict in the Middle East.
Introduction
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly the recurrent escalations in the Gaza Strip, remains one of the most intractable geopolitical challenges of our time. Decades of peace efforts, characterized by multilateral negotiations, international mediation, and various “roadmaps,” have largely failed to achieve a lasting resolution. Against this backdrop, the joint announcement by then-President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of a 20-point plan to end the Gaza war represented a significant, albeit controversial, diplomatic initiative. This proposal, presented under the aegis of a US administration that had already shifted traditional American Middle East policy significantly (e.g., Jerusalem recognition, Abraham Accords), offered a distinct approach to the perennial conflict.
This paper aims to provide a comprehensive academic analysis of this Trump-Netanyahu peace plan. It moves beyond mere recitation of its terms to critically assess its underlying assumptions, diplomatic innovations, and inherent challenges. We will first detail the key provisions of the plan, focusing on its immediate cessation of hostilities, prisoner exchange mechanisms, and the proposed post-conflict governance architecture for Gaza. Subsequently, the paper will analyze the initial reactions from a spectrum of regional and international actors, highlighting the complex interplay of interests, ideologies, and strategic calculations. A critical examination of the plan’s geopolitical implications, including its potential to reconfigure regional alliances and the future of Palestinian self-determination, will follow. Finally, recognizing the interconnectedness of the global system, the paper will explore the indirect yet significant impact of such developments on Singapore, a small, multi-ethnic maritime trading nation with vested interests in global stability, economic predictability, and counter-terrorism efforts.
I. The Trump-Netanyahu 20-Point Plan: A Detailed Analysis
The proposed 20-point plan distinguished itself through its immediacy, its reliance on a strict ultimatum, and its novel approach to post-conflict governance. Its core tenets can be categorized as follows:
A. Core Provisions: Ceasefire, Hostage/Prisoner Exchange, and Non-Occupation
The most immediate and critical aspect of the plan was the call for an instantaneous end to the war upon acceptance by both parties. This conditional ceasefire was tied directly to a stringent timeline for the exchange of captives:
Immediate Ceasefire: Designed to halt ongoing hostilities, preventing further casualties and destruction. Its effectiveness was contingent on universal acceptance, a significant hurdle given the deep distrust between the warring factions.
Hostage and Remains Return: A 72-hour deadline for the return of all Israeli hostages and remains held by Hamas. This provision underscored the humanitarian urgency and Israeli security priorities, placing a direct and time-bound responsibility on Hamas.
Prisoner Release: In exchange for the Israeli captives, Israel committed to releasing nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. This represents a substantial number, potentially dwarfing previous major prisoner exchange deals, and highlights the high stakes involved for both sides. The political implications of such a release within Israeli society and among Palestinians would be profound.
Non-Occupation or Annexation of Gaza: Crucially, the plan stipulated that Israel would not occupy or annex Gaza following the cessation of hostilities. This provision aimed to address a significant Palestinian concern—the fear of a reoccupation or permanent Israeli control—while also acknowledging the immense logistical and political burden such an action would entail for Israel. It implied a commitment to a post-conflict status quo that did not involve direct Israeli territorial expansion or long-term military presence.
B. The Proposed Governance Model for Gaza: Technocracy and the “Board of Peace”
Perhaps the most innovative and controversial aspect of the plan was its proposed post-conflict governance structure for Gaza:
“Technocratic, Apolitical Palestinian Committee”: Gaza would be governed by a committee focused exclusively on day-to-day public services. The emphasis on “technocratic” and “apolitical” aimed to circumvent the deep political divisions within Palestinian society and to depoliticize essential services, theoretically allowing for efficient governance removed from the immediate conflict’s ideological battles. This committee would ostensibly manage infrastructure, healthcare, education, and other civic functions, bypassing traditional Palestinian political structures (like the Palestinian Authority or Hamas).
“Board of Peace”: This committee would be overseen by a high-profile “Board of Peace” chaired by then-President Trump and including figures like former British PM Tony Blair. The inclusion of such prominent international figures, particularly a sitting U.S. President, signified an unprecedented level of external intervention and direct oversight. The “Board of Peace” would presumably provide strategic direction, secure international funding, and ensure accountability, acting as a guarantor of the peace process and a provider of legitimacy to the technocratic committee. This model reflected a belief that strong external leadership and a focus on practical administration could overcome the internal political paralysis.
C. The “Hamas Ultimatum”: A Strategic Gamble
The plan included a stark ultimatum directed at Hamas:
72-Hour Acceptance Deadline: Hamas was given 72 hours to accept the deal. This tight deadline was designed to exert maximum pressure, prevent prolonged negotiation, and force a rapid decision.
Consequence of Rejection: Failure to accept within the timeframe would result in “continued military action.” This threat underscored the coercive dimension of the diplomatic initiative, linking the peace proposal directly to the continuation of the military campaign. It framed the plan not merely as an offer, but as the only alternative to continued warfare, placing the onus of responsibility for ongoing conflict squarely on Hamas. This aspect was a significant strategic gamble, risking either quick resolution or immediate rejection and escalation.
II. Diplomatic Innovations and Departures from Tradition
The Trump-Netanyahu plan represented a significant departure from traditional Middle East peace processes, characterized by several key innovations and shifts in approach:
A. Bilateral Focus and US Mediation Style
Unlike previous multilateral frameworks, often involving numerous international actors and meticulously crafted roadmaps, this plan was largely conceived and presented bilaterally between the US and Israel. Trump’s “dealmaker” philosophy, emphasizing a transactional approach to diplomacy, was evident. This style prioritized direct pressure and immediate outcomes over protracted negotiations and nuanced compromises. It largely sidelined established international mechanisms and the broader Palestinian leadership, particularly in its initial stages.
B. The Role of External Powers (Trump, Blair)
The direct involvement of figures like Trump and Blair in the proposed “Board of Peace” was unprecedented. This level of personal, high-profile engagement by a sitting US President in the implementation of a detailed governance structure, rather than just mediation, signaled a profound shift. It suggested a belief that only strong, external, and perhaps even authoritarian, oversight could navigate the complexities and distrust inherent in the conflict. This also raises questions about sovereignty and the long-term sustainability of externally imposed governance.
C. Regional Engagement: The “Abraham Accords” Shadow
The plan emerged in an era marked by the “Abraham Accords,” which saw normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states. The expressed readiness of eight key Muslim nations (Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and UAE) to “engage constructively” with the plan hints at a broader regional calculus. These nations, many of whom have either direct interests in Palestinian stability (Egypt, Jordan, Qatar) or are seeking closer ties with the US and Israel (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain – though not listed here, it’s part of the broader context), might have viewed the plan as an opportunity to reduce regional tensions, counter Iranian influence, or secure their own strategic positions. Their conditional engagement suggested a pragmatic recognition of the plan’s potential, even if they harbored reservations about its details or ultimate fairness.
III. Stakeholder Responses and Legitimacy Challenges
The success of any peace plan hinges on its acceptance by the primary stakeholders. The Trump-Netanyahu proposal elicited a polarized range of responses, highlighting its inherent challenges regarding legitimacy and viability.
A. Israeli and US Perspectives: Security and Political Imperatives
From the Israeli perspective, championed by Netanyahu and backed by the Trump administration, the plan likely offered significant security benefits. The immediate return of hostages and remains, the promise of ending military action under specific conditions, and a governance structure in Gaza designed to sideline Hamas would align with Israel’s long-standing security imperatives. The non-occupation clause also relieved Israel of the burden of administering Gaza directly, a policy goal after its 2005 disengagement. For the Trump administration, the plan represented a tangible diplomatic achievement, fulfilling a campaign promise to broker a significant deal and projecting US leadership, albeit through a highly unconventional approach.
B. Palestinian Fissures: PA Acceptance vs. Hamas/Islamic Jihad Rejection
The Palestinian response was predictably fractured, underscoring the deep divisions within Palestinian leadership:
Palestinian Authority (PA) Reception: The PA “welcomed Trump’s efforts,” a cautious endorsement that reflected its desperate need for a political horizon and international engagement, despite its often-strained relationship with the Trump administration. This welcome likely stemmed from a desire to remain relevant in any future arrangements and to potentially secure international funding and support for a post-Hamas Gaza. However, it did not constitute an outright acceptance of the plan’s specific terms, particularly those that might undermine its own aspirations for statehood or legitimacy.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad Rejection: Unsurprisingly, Islamic Jihad “rejected it as ‘a recipe for continued aggression’.” Given the plan’s explicit ultimatum and its inherent aim to marginalize their political and military power, Hamas and Islamic Jihad were unlikely to accept a proposal that effectively demanded their self-destruction or surrender. Their rejection was rooted in ideological opposition, strategic self-preservation, and a perception that the plan was dictated rather than negotiated.
Gaza Residents’ Skepticism: The skepticism expressed by Gaza residents, viewing it as “a trick,” highlighted the profound distrust fostered by years of conflict and broken promises. For the civilian population, the plan, regardless of its specific terms, might have been seen as another imposition from external powers, potentially offering a temporary reprieve but not a fundamental solution to their long-term suffering and political aspirations.
C. Regional Power Dynamics: Conditional Engagement vs. Skepticism
The eight Muslim nations’ “readiness to engage constructively” was a significant development, but it was conditional. This implied a willingness to explore the plan’s potential for de-escalation and regional stability, perhaps seeing it as an opportunity to enhance their strategic ties with the US and Israel. However, this did not equate to full endorsement of all provisions, especially those that might be perceived as undermining Palestinian rights or sovereignty. Other regional actors, particularly those with less direct US influence or strong ideological ties to the Palestinian cause, might have viewed the plan with deeper skepticism, concerned about its potential to further destabilize the region or consolidate Israeli power without addressing core Palestinian grievances.
IV. Geopolitical Ramifications and Prospects for Success
The ambitious nature of the Trump-Netanyahu plan meant its geopolitical ramifications, had it been accepted, would have been profound. However, its immediate prospects for success were, as noted in the prompt, “uncertain.”
A. The Viability of a Non-State-Based Governance Model
The proposed “technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee” overseen by a “Board of Peace” was a radical departure from traditional state-building models. While designed to circumvent political deadlock, it raised fundamental questions about:
Legitimacy: How would a committee not elected by or accountable to the Palestinian people gain sufficient legitimacy to govern effectively?
Sovereignty: The extensive international oversight, particularly by individuals like a former US President, would significantly diminish any semblance of Palestinian self-governance, raising concerns about external imposition.
Sustainability: Without popular mandate, how could such a committee resist future political challenges or the resurgence of armed factions? This model risked creating a dependency on external powers rather than fostering genuine Palestinian institutional development.
B. The Hamas Dilemma: Leverage, Ideology, and Survival
The ultimatum to Hamas was the plan’s linchpin and its most probable point of failure. Hamas’s rejection was almost assured for several reasons:
Loss of Control: Accepting the plan would mean surrendering its military capabilities, political authority, and control over Gaza, effectively dismantling its raison d’être.
Ideological Stance: Hamas is an ideologically driven movement that fundamentally rejects the legitimacy of Israel and advocates for Palestinian liberation through resistance. A plan seen as capitulation would betray its core principles.
Survival Instinct: For a group that derives its power from armed resistance and its governance from its presence on the ground, accepting the cessation of military action and an “apolitical” governance structure would be an act of political suicide. Hamas would view rejection as its only viable option to preserve its leverage and identity, even if it meant continued conflict.
C. Long-Term Stability vs. Short-Term Ceasefire
Even if a temporary ceasefire had been achieved, the plan’s ability to deliver long-term stability was questionable. Without addressing the underlying causes of the conflict—such as the occupation of Palestinian territories, the blockade of Gaza, and the aspirations for Palestinian statehood—any peace would likely be fragile. A technocratic committee, while potentially improving daily life, would not satisfy the deep political and nationalistic sentiments driving the conflict. The danger was that a short-term cessation of hostilities might simply defer, rather than resolve, deeper structural issues, leading to future escalations.
D. Reshaping US Role in Mideast Diplomacy
The Trump administration’s approach, epitomized by this plan, indicated a shift away from the traditional US role as an even-handed mediator (or at least one aspiring to appear so). By closely aligning with Israeli security interests and presenting a plan perceived as heavily favoring one side, the US risked further alienating Palestinian leadership and reducing its credibility as an impartial broker in future negotiations. This could leave a vacuum for other global powers to exert influence or deepen the perception of a fragmented and biased international peace process.
V. The Unseen Impact: Implications for Singapore
While geographically distant, events in the Middle East, particularly significant diplomatic and security developments like the Trump-Netanyahu plan, have multifaceted and often profound indirect implications for Singapore. As a small, open economy and a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society deeply integrated into the global system, Singapore has a vested interest in international stability and the adherence to international law.
A. Economic Stability and Global Supply Chains
Energy Prices: The Middle East is the world’s primary oil-producing region. Any significant conflict or resolution directly impacts global oil and gas prices. As a nation heavily reliant on imported energy, Singapore’s economy is highly sensitive to these fluctuations. An end to the Gaza war, especially one that reduces regional tensions, could contribute to stabilized energy markets, benefiting Singaporean consumers and industries. Conversely, a failed peace plan leading to renewed or intensified conflict would likely drive up prices, increasing operational costs for businesses and potentially triggering inflation.
Trade Routes and Maritime Security: The Suez Canal, a vital artery for global trade, is directly affected by instability in the Middle East. Singapore, as a major transshipment hub and one of the world’s busiest ports, relies on the unimpeded flow of maritime traffic through this route. Any disruption, whether from conflict or enhanced security measures, would cause delays, increase shipping costs, and ripple through global supply chains, impacting Singapore’s trade volumes and economic competitiveness.
Investor Confidence: Persistent conflict in a geopolitically important region can dampen global investor confidence. While direct investment flows from the Middle East to Singapore might not be as dominant as from other regions, broader geopolitical uncertainty affects risk perception, potentially leading to slower economic growth, reduced foreign direct investment, and volatility in financial markets, all of which would impact Singapore’s economy.
B. Regional Security and Counter-Terrorism Efforts
Radicalization and Extremist Narratives: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a powerful rallying cry for extremist groups globally. Intensified conflict can fuel radicalization narratives, resonating with disaffected individuals and potentially inspiring acts of terrorism even in distant lands. Singapore, with its vigilant counter-terrorism efforts and a significant Muslim minority, is acutely aware of the need to prevent the importation of such conflicts and the spread of extremist ideologies. A genuine peace process, or even a successful de-escalation, could mitigate this risk by reducing the potency of such narratives. Conversely, a failed plan leading to sustained conflict could heighten the risk of homegrown radicalization or external threats.
Maritime Security: While indirectly, regional instability can sometimes lead to an increase in piracy or maritime crime in strategic waterways. Singapore, located at the Strait of Malacca, a critical choke point for global shipping, is highly sensitive to any threats to maritime security. Although direct links are tenuous, a generalized increase in global tensions or the diversion of resources to address Middle East conflicts could, in theory, impact the broader international security architecture that indirectly supports maritime safety elsewhere.
C. Diplomatic Posture and Small State Advocacy
International Law and Multilateralism: Singapore consistently advocates for a rules-based international order, adherence to international law, and the critical role of multilateral institutions like the UN. A peace plan perceived as unilaterally imposed, lacking genuine Palestinian self-determination, or circumventing established international norms could challenge these principles. Singapore would likely maintain a principled stance, emphasizing the need for a just and lasting solution based on international law and UN resolutions.
Relations with Muslim Nations: Singapore maintains strong diplomatic and economic ties with many Muslim-majority nations, including those mentioned in the plan (Indonesia, Malaysia, UAE, Qatar). The way these nations react to a Middle East peace plan, and how it is perceived by the broader Muslim world, can indirectly influence Singapore’s bilateral and regional relationships. A constructive engagement by key Muslim nations with a peace plan could facilitate Singapore’s own diplomatic and economic outreach in the region.
Maintaining Neutrality: As a small state, Singapore often seeks to maintain neutrality and a balanced foreign policy. Navigating the complex and emotionally charged dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires careful diplomacy. Any plan that deeply divides the international community or its regional partners could complicate Singapore’s efforts to maintain good relations with all parties.
D. Social Cohesion and Inter-Religious Harmony
Domestic Impact of External Conflicts: Singapore’s multi-ethnic and multi-religious society is a core strength, but also a potential vulnerability to external conflicts that can inflame communal sentiments. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in particular, resonates deeply within the Muslim community and elicits strong views from other communities as well. The Singapore government is highly proactive in managing external influences to prevent them from undermining social cohesion. A successful peace plan could alleviate some of these domestic pressures, while a failed or controversial one could exacerbate them, requiring careful navigation of public discourse and community relations to preserve inter-religious harmony.
Conclusion
The Trump-Netanyahu 20-point plan to end the Gaza war represented a bold, highly unconventional, and ultimately uncertain diplomatic gambit. Its core provisions, including an immediate ceasefire, a substantial prisoner exchange, and a commitment against Israeli occupation, were coupled with a novel and externally supervised “technocratic” governance model for Gaza. The plan’s reliance on a strict ultimatum for Hamas and the direct involvement of high-profile international figures like Trump and Blair underscored its departure from traditional peace-making approaches.
While the plan garnered conditional readiness for engagement from several key Muslim nations and a cautious welcome from the Palestinian Authority, its outright rejection by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, coupled with widespread skepticism among Gaza residents, highlighted its fundamental flaw: a lack of legitimacy and buy-in from a crucial stakeholder whose very existence it sought to diminish. The proposed governance model, while aiming for efficiency, raised serious questions about Palestinian sovereignty, self-determination, and long-term sustainability. The geopolitical ramifications, had it proceeded, would have included a significant reshaping of the US role in regional diplomacy and a potential reordering of power dynamics in the Middle East, albeit under a cloud of deep distrust and unresolved core issues.
For nations like Singapore, far removed geographically, the direct impact of such a plan, or its failure, is less about territorial gains or losses and more about the ripple effects across the global system. Economic stability, driven by predictable energy prices and secure trade routes, is paramount for Singapore’s prosperity. Regional security concerns, particularly the risk of radicalization and the spread of extremist narratives, directly bear on Singapore’s domestic social cohesion and its robust counter-terrorism efforts. Furthermore, Singapore’s diplomatic posture as a principled advocate for international law and multilateralism, and its delicate balancing act in maintaining relations with diverse global partners, would be tested by the nature and reception of such a peace initiative.
Ultimately, the Trump-Netanyahu plan, while ambitious, foundered on the intractable realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the deep-seated mistrust among its primary actors. Its legacy lies not in a successful resolution, but in illustrating the complexities of “deal-making” versus traditional diplomacy in deeply entrenched conflicts, and in reaffirming the profound interconnectedness of global affairs, even for distant nations like Singapore, which remain deeply invested in the pursuit of peace and stability worldwide.
Trump-Netanyahu Gaza Peace Plan: A Critical Analysis and Singapore’s Strategic Position
Executive Summary
The joint announcement by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on September 29, 2025, introducing a comprehensive 20-point plan to end the Gaza war represents a watershed moment in Middle East diplomacy. This ambitious framework, backed by eight major Muslim-majority nations, attempts to resolve one of the world’s most intractable conflicts through a novel governance structure and unprecedented regional cooperation. For Singapore, a small nation heavily dependent on global stability and Middle Eastern energy supplies, the implications extend far beyond diplomatic observation.
The Architecture of Peace: Deconstructing the 20-Point Plan
Immediate Ceasefire Provisions
The plan’s most striking feature is its aggressive timeline. Hamas has been given just 72 hours to accept the terms and facilitate the immediate return of all hostages and remains of those killed. This compressed timeframe reflects Trump’s characteristic negotiating style—creating urgency to force decision-making. However, it also raises questions about whether such pressure tactics can work with a militant organization that has historically operated outside conventional diplomatic norms.
Israel’s commitment to release nearly 2,000 prisoners represents a significant concession, though the plan’s stipulation that Israel will “not occupy or annex Gaza” while maintaining “security responsibility, including a security perimeter for the foreseeable future” reveals the inherent tension in the agreement. This is not a complete Israeli withdrawal, but rather a reconfiguration of control that may prove difficult to sustain politically on both sides.
The Governance Innovation: Technocracy Over Politics
Perhaps the most revolutionary aspect of the plan is its proposed governance structure for Gaza. By calling for a “technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee” to manage day-to-day services, the plan attempts to sideline Hamas entirely from Gaza’s future administration. This represents a fundamental rejection of the results of the 2006 Palestinian elections that brought Hamas to power, raising questions about democratic legitimacy versus pragmatic peace-building.
The “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump himself, with participation from figures like former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, creates an unprecedented international trusteeship model. This arrangement effectively internationalizes Gaza’s governance, potentially providing the security guarantees needed for reconstruction while raising concerns about Palestinian sovereignty and self-determination.
Economic Reconstruction and Humanitarian Relief
The plan’s promise to immediately resume aid and convene a “panel of experts” to “rebuild and energise” Gaza addresses the humanitarian catastrophe that has unfolded since October 2023. Two years of conflict have devastated Gaza’s infrastructure, displaced the majority of its population, and created a humanitarian emergency of staggering proportions.
However, the economic viability of reconstruction depends entirely on sustained international funding and political stability. Past reconstruction efforts in Gaza have been hampered by cycles of conflict, making any pledge of economic development contingent on lasting peace—a chicken-and-egg problem that has plagued previous peace initiatives.
Regional Dynamics: The Muslim Coalition
Unprecedented Alignment
The backing of eight key Muslim-majority nations—Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates—represents a diplomatic coup for the Trump administration. This coalition includes countries with diverse relationships with Israel, from those with normalized relations (UAE) to those without formal diplomatic ties (Indonesia, Pakistan).
Egypt’s support is particularly crucial given its role as Gaza’s southern neighbor and historical mediator in Palestinian affairs. Jordan’s backing, despite domestic public opinion strongly sympathetic to Palestinians, reflects King Abdullah’s pragmatic approach to regional stability. Turkey’s involvement is perhaps most surprising, given President Erdoğan’s historically strong rhetoric against Israeli actions in Gaza.
Qatar’s participation deserves special attention. Despite the recent Israeli strike on Doha that killed a Qatari serviceman—a strike for which Netanyahu expressed regret following Trump’s intervention—Qatar’s continued engagement as a mediator demonstrates its commitment to its regional role. As host to the largest US military base in the region and Hamas’s political leadership, Qatar occupies a unique position that makes it indispensable to any peace process.
Saudi Arabia’s Calculus
Saudi Arabia’s support for the plan must be understood within the broader context of US-Saudi relations and the kingdom’s Vision 2030 economic transformation. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has indicated openness to normalizing relations with Israel, but has consistently tied such moves to progress on Palestinian statehood. The plan’s reference to conditions for a Palestinian state being “finally in place” provides Saudi Arabia with the diplomatic cover needed to move forward with normalization while claiming to advance Palestinian interests.
For the Trump administration, Saudi normalization with Israel represents a key foreign policy objective that would reshape Middle Eastern geopolitics and further isolate Iran. This plan appears designed to create the conditions for that historic agreement.
Palestinian Perspectives: Authority Versus Resistance
The Palestinian Authority’s Dilemma
The Palestinian Authority’s welcoming of Trump’s peace efforts reflects its weakened position in Palestinian politics. Confined to limited self-governance in parts of the West Bank, the PA has seen its legitimacy challenged by Hamas in Gaza and faces regular confrontations with Israeli security forces and settlers. President Mahmoud Abbas, now serving well beyond his elected term, sees engagement with this plan as potentially reviving the PA’s relevance.
However, the PA’s endorsement of a plan that explicitly excludes Hamas from governance risks widening the Palestinian political divide. Any sustainable peace requires eventual reconciliation between Fatah (which controls the PA) and Hamas, yet this plan appears designed to sideline Hamas permanently.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad: Rejection and Resistance
Islamic Jihad’s immediate rejection of the plan as “a recipe for continued aggression” signals that militant Palestinian factions view this proposal as an instrument of surrender rather than genuine peace. Hamas’s more measured response—stating it needs to study the proposal—may reflect internal divisions within the organization between pragmatists and hardliners.
The fundamental question remains: Can Hamas accept a plan that requires it to relinquish all governance authority in Gaza? For an organization that has defined itself through armed resistance and has governed Gaza for nearly two decades, accepting such terms would constitute an existential crisis. The 72-hour deadline appears designed to prevent lengthy internal deliberations that might allow Hamas to develop counter-proposals or conditions.
Voices from Gaza: Skepticism on the Ground
Gaza residents’ dismissal of the plan as “a trick to release Israeli hostages that would not end the war” reflects the deep distrust that two years of devastating conflict have created. After witnessing the destruction of homes, schools, hospitals, and entire neighborhoods, many Gazans doubt that any agreement will bring genuine peace rather than merely a temporary pause before the next round of violence.
This grassroots skepticism poses a significant challenge to implementation. Even if Hamas’s leadership accepts the plan, maintaining public support for compliance will be difficult if ordinary Gazans view it as a betrayal of their suffering and sacrifices.
Trump’s Strategic Pivot: From Unconditional Support to Conditional Pressure
The Evolution of Trump’s Israel Policy
Trump’s approach to Israel has undergone a notable evolution during his second presidency. While maintaining his position as a “steadfast supporter” who has been “better to Israel” than any previous president, Trump has increasingly signaled frustration with Netanyahu’s prosecution of the war.
The public rebuke following the Doha strike and the stern warning against West Bank annexation demonstrate that Trump views continued conflict as jeopardizing his broader Middle East objectives. His comment that “it’s time” and that he had “big, strong talk” with Netanyahu suggests a more transactional relationship than the unconditional support that characterized Trump’s first term.
This shift reflects political calculations as well. Trump’s warning that he “would not let Netanyahu annex the West Bank” acknowledges that such a move would destroy any prospect of Saudi-Israeli normalization and inflame the entire region. Trump’s focus on achieving a signature foreign policy success—a comprehensive Middle East peace deal—requires him to balance his pro-Israel credentials with the demands of Arab partners whose cooperation he needs.
“Israel Fatigue” in American Politics
The reference in related reporting to Trump’s plan tackling “Israel fatigue” in America points to a significant domestic political concern. Two years of war, with extensive media coverage of civilian casualties and humanitarian suffering in Gaza, has created discomfort among segments of the American public, particularly younger voters and progressives who were already critical of unconditional US support for Israel.
Campus protests, Democratic Party divisions, and polling showing declining support for Israel among certain demographics have created political pressure on Trump to demonstrate that he is actively pursuing peace rather than merely enabling endless conflict. This plan allows Trump to position himself as a peacemaker while maintaining strong support for Israel’s security.
Geopolitical Implications: Crimping China’s Middle East Ambitions
The China Factor
Analysis suggesting that Trump’s Gaza plan “crimps China in the Middle East” highlights an often-overlooked dimension of this peace initiative: great power competition. China has significantly expanded its Middle East presence over the past decade through Belt and Road infrastructure investments, energy partnerships, and diplomatic initiatives like brokering the Saudi-Iran rapprochement in 2023.
A US-brokered comprehensive Middle East peace that includes Israeli normalization with Saudi Arabia and potentially other Gulf states would reassert American diplomatic primacy in the region. It would demonstrate that despite China’s economic influence, the United States remains the indispensable power broker for resolving the region’s most contentious security issues.
For China, which has cultivated relationships with both Israel (particularly in technology and trade) and Arab states (primarily through energy and infrastructure), a US-dominated peace process limits Beijing’s ability to position itself as an alternative diplomatic leader. China’s relatively hands-off approach to the Gaza conflict—calling for peace without actively mediating—has created space for Trump to reclaim American leadership.
Iran’s Isolation
While not explicitly mentioned in the plan, Iran’s isolation represents a crucial subtext. A peace agreement that brings Israel and major Sunni Arab states into closer cooperation would create a formidable counter-weight to Iranian influence in the region. Iran’s support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and other militant groups has been a central element of its regional strategy. This plan, if successful, would deal a significant blow to that strategy.
The inclusion of Turkey and Qatar—both of which maintain channels to Iran—in the supporting coalition is particularly significant. It suggests that even countries with pragmatic relationships with Tehran see value in a US-led regional security architecture.
Singapore’s Strategic Interests: Navigating Middle East Turbulence
Energy Security Imperatives
For Singapore, stability in the Middle East is not an abstract diplomatic concern but a fundamental national interest. As a nation without natural resources, Singapore imports 100% of its energy needs. While Singapore has diversified its energy sources and does not rely exclusively on Middle Eastern oil and gas, the region remains critical to global energy markets and therefore to Singapore’s energy security.
Middle East instability affects global oil prices, shipping routes, and energy supply chains. The ongoing Gaza war has already contributed to regional tensions that could potentially disrupt shipping through the Suez Canal or escalate into broader conflicts affecting the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly one-third of global seaborne oil passes. Any agreement that reduces the risk of regional escalation serves Singapore’s energy security interests.
Maritime and Trade Considerations
Singapore’s position as a global maritime hub makes it particularly sensitive to regional instability that could affect shipping routes. The Red Sea attacks by Yemen’s Houthi rebels, acting in solidarity with Palestinians, have already forced many shipping companies to reroute vessels around Africa, adding time and cost to global supply chains.
A credible peace process that reduces regional tensions could help normalize maritime security in the Red Sea and broader Middle East waters. This would benefit Singapore’s port operations, bunkering industry, and position as a transshipment hub. The phrase “eternal peace in the Middle East” that Trump used may be hyperbolic, but even sustained stability would significantly benefit global trade flows that Singapore depends upon.
Financial Hub Dynamics
Singapore’s status as a major financial center gives it exposure to Middle Eastern capital flows and investment. Sovereign wealth funds from Gulf states, particularly from the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, are significant players in global finance, and Singapore competes for this capital against other financial centers.
A successful peace agreement would likely unlock substantial Gulf investment in reconstruction and development projects, creating opportunities for Singapore-based financial institutions, project management firms, and technology companies to participate. Singapore’s expertise in urban planning, port development, and smart city technologies could be valuable in rebuilding Gaza and developing Palestinian economic infrastructure.
Diplomatic Balancing Act
Singapore’s foreign policy has long been characterized by careful balancing between major powers and maintaining constructive relationships across divides. Singapore maintains strong ties with both Israel and Arab states, and has carefully avoided taking sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict beyond supporting UN resolutions favoring a two-state solution.
The Trump-Netanyahu plan presents a diplomatic challenge for Singapore. While the backing of eight Muslim-majority nations (including ASEAN partner Indonesia) provides some cover, the plan’s explicit exclusion of Hamas from governance and its effective internationalization of Gaza may prove controversial in the Muslim world if implementation falters or appears to perpetuate Palestinian dispossession.
Singapore’s likely approach will be to cautiously welcome international efforts toward peace while emphasizing the importance of addressing Palestinian aspirations for statehood and ensuring that any agreement has genuine Palestinian support. Singapore will be particularly attentive to Indonesia’s position, given the importance of the bilateral relationship and Indonesia’s influence in the Islamic world.
Regional Stability and ASEAN Centrality
Beyond direct interests, Singapore benefits from any development that demonstrates the value of multilateral diplomacy and rules-based international order. Singapore has consistently advocated for small states’ rights to exist and thrive without coercion from larger neighbors—a principle directly relevant to both Singapore’s own security and to Palestinian aspirations.
The involvement of Indonesia and other Muslim-majority nations in supporting this peace plan may provide a model for ASEAN engagement in global conflict resolution. It demonstrates that Asian nations can play constructive roles in addressing conflicts beyond their immediate neighborhood, potentially enhancing ASEAN’s relevance on the global stage.
Critical Assessment: Prospects for Success
Structural Challenges
Several fundamental challenges threaten the plan’s viability:
The Hamas Acceptance Problem: The entire plan rests on Hamas accepting terms that require it to surrender governance authority. Without Hamas’s agreement, the plan cannot proceed, and Trump has promised Netanyahu “full backing” to continue military operations. This creates a binary outcome—acceptance or continued war—without middle ground for negotiation.
Israeli Political Dynamics: Netanyahu leads a right-wing coalition that includes parties opposed to Palestinian statehood and committed to West Bank settlement expansion. While Netanyahu claims the plan “achieves our war aims,” implementing an agreement that keeps open the possibility of Palestinian statehood may fracture his coalition and endanger his political survival.
Palestinian Legitimacy: The plan’s reliance on a “technocratic, apolitical” committee raises questions about democratic legitimacy. Who selects this committee? To whom is it accountable? Without mechanisms for Palestinian participation in choosing their governance, the arrangement may be seen as foreign imposition rather than self-determination.
Enforcement and Compliance: Even if initially accepted, maintaining compliance requires sustained international engagement, monitoring mechanisms, and consequences for violations. The “Board of Peace” structure is unprecedented and untested. Will it have enforcement powers? How will it handle violations by either party?
Historical Parallels and Lessons
Previous Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts offer sobering lessons. The Oslo Accords of the 1990s created initial optimism but ultimately failed to produce a final status agreement. The 2000 Camp David Summit collapsed over irreconcilable differences on Jerusalem, refugees, and borders. The 2013-2014 Kerry Initiative failed to bridge gaps between the parties.
What distinguishes this plan is the unprecedented backing from Muslim-majority nations and the direct involvement of the US president in chairing the oversight body. However, external support cannot substitute for genuine agreement between the principals. Both Israelis and Palestinians have proven willing to reject plans they view as compromising their core interests, regardless of international pressure.
The Hostage Calculus
The plan’s immediate focus on hostage release reflects the political reality that this issue dominates Israeli public consciousness. Families of hostages have mounted a sustained campaign demanding their release, creating domestic political pressure on Netanyahu that may have made him more amenable to compromise.
However, hostages are also Hamas’s primary leverage. Once released, Hamas loses its most valuable bargaining chip. The requirement that hostages be returned within 72 hours of acceptance, before other elements of the agreement are implemented, raises the question of why Hamas would surrender this leverage based on promises of future compliance.
Alternative Scenarios and Contingencies
Scenario 1: Hamas Acceptance
If Hamas accepts the plan, implementation faces enormous challenges. Transitioning from Hamas governance to a technocratic committee would require Hamas to surrender not just political authority but also control over security forces, borders, and resources. The mechanism for this transition is unclear, and the potential for spoilers—hardliners within Hamas or other militant groups like Islamic Jihad—to undermine the agreement through violence is substantial.
Israel’s commitment to maintaining “security responsibility” could provide either stabilization or a source of friction, depending on how it’s implemented. Palestinian civilians who have endured Israeli military operations may view continued Israeli security control as occupation by another name.
Scenario 2: Hamas Rejection
Hamas rejection would vindicate Trump’s warning and give Netanyahu the “full backing” promised to destroy Hamas militarily. However, two years of intense military operations have not eliminated Hamas, raising questions about whether continued war can achieve this objective. The humanitarian cost would be catastrophic, potentially destabilizing Egypt and Jordan as refugee flows increase.
Regional support for the plan might erode if war continues, as Arab states face domestic pressure over Palestinian suffering. The coalition that backed the plan could fracture, leaving the US and Israel more isolated internationally.
Scenario 3: Partial Implementation
A more likely scenario involves partial implementation where some elements proceed while others stall. Hostage release might occur, creating initial optimism, but governance transition could prove impossible. Reconstruction might begin in some areas while conflict continues in others. This muddled outcome—neither peace nor total war—has characterized much of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’s history.
Long-Term Implications: Reshaping Middle East Order
The Abraham Accords 2.0
Trump’s explicit linking of the Gaza plan to broader Middle East peace and Arab-Israeli normalization suggests this is conceived as a pathway to expanding the Abraham Accords that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states during Trump’s first term.
Saudi normalization with Israel would be the crown jewel of this strategy, potentially triggering a cascade of additional normalizations. This would create a fundamentally different Middle East order, with Israel integrated into regional security and economic structures rather than isolated from them.
However, this vision requires addressing Palestinian aspirations in a way that Arab states can politically justify to their populations. The plan’s reference to conditions for Palestinian statehood being “in place” provides the necessary rhetorical framework, but whether it delivers substantive Palestinian self-determination remains uncertain.
Impact on Iran and the Resistance Axis
Success in implementing this plan would represent a strategic defeat for Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” ideology, which has positioned Iran as the champion of Palestinian rights and opponent of normalization with Israel. Hamas’s acceptance of a US-brokered plan that excludes it from governance would contradict this narrative.
Conversely, the plan’s failure and continued war could strengthen Iran’s position by demonstrating that resistance rather than negotiation is the only effective Palestinian strategy. This could embolden other Iranian-backed groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Houthi forces in Yemen.
Precedent for International Governance Models
The “Board of Peace” structure, if implemented, could establish a precedent for international involvement in resolving intractable conflicts. This model of great power trusteeship over disputed territories could be applied to other frozen conflicts, though it raises fundamental questions about sovereignty and self-determination.
For small states like Singapore, such precedents cut both ways. On one hand, they demonstrate that international cooperation can address seemingly insoluble problems. On the other hand, they suggest that great powers can override local preferences when they deem it necessary, a potentially troubling principle for nations committed to sovereignty and self-determination.
Singapore’s Policy Recommendations
Maintain Constructive Ambiguity
Singapore should continue its policy of supporting peace efforts without explicitly endorsing specific plans that remain controversial. Public statements should welcome international efforts to end the conflict and address humanitarian needs while emphasizing the importance of Palestinian self-determination and a sustainable two-state solution.
Deepen Economic Engagement
Singapore should prepare to participate in reconstruction and development efforts if the plan succeeds. This includes positioning Singapore-based firms and financial institutions to engage in project financing, urban planning, water management, and smart city development—all areas where Singapore has recognized expertise.
Strengthen Regional Consultations
Singapore should intensify consultations with Indonesia and other ASEAN partners to ensure regional cohesion on Middle East issues. As Indonesia is among the Muslim-majority nations backing the plan, understanding Jakarta’s perspective and coordinating positions will be important for ASEAN unity.
Monitor Energy Market Impacts
Singapore should continue monitoring the plan’s impact on global energy markets and supply chain security. The Energy Market Authority and relevant agencies should prepare contingency plans for scenarios ranging from stabilization (potentially lowering energy costs) to escalation (potentially disrupting supplies).
Support Humanitarian Assistance
Regardless of political outcomes, Singapore should continue supporting humanitarian assistance to Gaza through established international organizations. This maintains Singapore’s reputation as a responsible global citizen while avoiding entanglement in political disputes.
Conclusion: A Historic Gamble
The Trump-Netanyahu 20-point plan represents an audacious attempt to resolve one of the world’s most enduring conflicts through an unconventional structure backed by unprecedented regional support. Its success would reshape Middle Eastern geopolitics, advance Trump’s vision of comprehensive regional peace, and create opportunities for reconstruction and development.
However, the plan’s viability depends on Hamas accepting terms that require surrendering governance authority, Israeli implementation that respects Palestinian aspirations, and sustained international engagement to oversee a complex transition. The 72-hour deadline creates urgency but may not allow sufficient time for the internal deliberations and confidence-building needed for such a momentous decision.
For Singapore, the implications extend beyond diplomatic observation to concrete interests in energy security, maritime trade, financial flows, and regional stability. A successful peace would benefit Singapore’s position as a global hub while demonstrating the value of multilateral diplomacy. Failure and continued conflict would perpetuate regional instability that affects global systems Singapore depends upon.
The coming days will reveal whether Trump’s characteristic boldness in setting aggressive deadlines can overcome decades of failed peace efforts, or whether this plan joins the long list of ambitious proposals that foundered on the rocks of irreconcilable positions and deep-seated mistrust. What is certain is that the stakes—for Israelis, Palestinians, regional stability, and global peace—could not be higher.
As Singapore navigates this evolving situation, its traditional approach of principled pragmatism, careful balancing, and constructive engagement will serve it well. In a world of deepening great power competition and regional instability, small states must be both nimble and principled, ready to seize opportunities for constructive engagement while protecting core interests and values.
The next 72 hours may prove historic—or may simply mark another chapter in the tragic saga of failed Middle East peace efforts. Singapore, like the rest of the world, watches and waits.
The Seventy-Two Hour Watch
Hour 1: The Announcement
Ambassador Sarah Lim stood at the floor-to-ceiling windows of Singapore’s mission to the United Nations, watching the Manhattan skyline blur into dusk. Her phone buzzed with the alert she’d been expecting: Trump and Netanyahu had announced their plan.
Twenty points. Seventy-two hours. Eight Muslim nations in support.
“Ambitious,” muttered her deputy, Rahman, reading over her shoulder. “Or reckless.”
Sarah didn’t answer immediately. She’d spent fifteen years in the foreign service, posted in Tel Aviv, Jakarta, and now New York. She’d learned that in diplomacy, the line between ambition and recklessness often only became clear in hindsight.
“Get me Minister Balakrishnan’s office,” she said quietly. “And prepare briefing notes. I want historical precedents, risk assessments, and economic impact projections on my desk in two hours.”
Rahman nodded and left. Sarah remained at the window, thinking of her son, David, eight years old, who’d asked her at breakfast that morning why people couldn’t just stop fighting. She’d given him the usual parent’s answer about complicated histories and difficult feelings.
But watching the city lights flicker on, she wondered if maybe children understood something adults had forgotten: that at some point, you simply had to decide to stop.
Hour 18: The Indonesian Call
The secure line crackled to life at 2 AM Singapore time. Sarah had been awake anyway, reviewing cables.
“Ambassador Lim, this is Foreign Minister Marsudi’s office in Jakarta.”
Sarah sat up straighter. Indonesia’s involvement was crucial—not just as the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation, but as Singapore’s ASEAN partner and neighbor.
“Minister Marsudi wants you to know that Indonesia’s support for the plan is conditional,” the voice continued. “We need credible pathways to Palestinian statehood. Not promises. Pathways.”
“Understood,” Sarah replied, scribbling notes. “And if those pathways don’t materialize?”
A pause. “Then Indonesia will have difficult decisions to make. We hope Singapore understands our position.”
After the call ended, Sarah drafted a cable to the Foreign Ministry. The message was clear: the Muslim coalition backing this plan was more fragile than it appeared. Indonesia was looking for an exit if things went wrong.
She encrypted the message and sent it, then poured herself a third coffee. Sleep could wait.
Hour 34: The Market Opens
Tan Wei Seng, director at the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s International Department, watched the screens in the emergency operations room. The Singapore Exchange had just opened, and energy futures were already moving.
“Brent crude up two percent,” called out one analyst. “Shipping companies gaining on Red Sea stability hopes.”
But Wei Seng’s eyes were on the volatility indices. The market was optimistic but nervous—like a gambler who’d put everything on red and was watching the wheel spin.
His phone rang. It was Sarah Lim from New York.
“Wei Seng, I need your read on the economic implications if this fails.”
He pulled up a modeling scenario his team had run overnight. “If Hamas rejects and fighting intensifies, we’re looking at potential Strait of Hormuz disruptions. Oil could spike fifteen to twenty percent. Insurance rates for shipping through the region would triple. We’d see supply chain impacts within weeks.”
“And if it succeeds?”
“Then we’re part of the reconstruction conversation. Gaza needs everything—ports, power, water systems. Singapore firms are positioned to participate, but…” He hesitated.
“But what?”
“But reconstruction money is political money. We’d be taking sides just by taking contracts. Some of our Arab partners might see it as legitimizing occupation. Others might see staying out as abandoning the Palestinians.”
Sarah was quiet for a moment. “So we’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t.”
“Welcome to Middle East economics,” Wei Seng replied. “Where every dollar has a flag attached to it.”
Hour 48: The Student Protest
Dr. Amira Hassan, a professor of political science at the National University of Singapore, watched from her office as students gathered at the campus plaza. They were young, passionate, holding signs that read “FREE PALESTINE” and “JUSTICE NOT DEALS.”
One of her best students, a Palestinian-Singaporean named Leila, was speaking through a megaphone. “This plan erases us! It treats our homeland like a corporation to be restructured, not a nation to be freed!”
Amira’s phone buzzed. It was a message from the university administration: “Monitor situation. Report if escalation occurs.”
She thought about her own daughter, studying at Cambridge, who’d called her the night before in tears. “How can we celebrate peace built on Hamas’s destruction? They’re still part of our people, Mama. Wrong as they are, they’re still ours.”
Amira had no answer then. She had none now.
She walked down to the plaza. Leila saw her and came over, her eyes wet but fierce.
“Professor, tell me I’m wrong. Tell me this plan gives us dignity.”
Amira chose her words carefully. “It gives you a chance, Leila. Maybe not justice. Maybe not everything you deserve. But a chance to stop dying. Isn’t that worth something?”
Leila looked away, toward the Singaporean flag flying above the campus. “My grandfather fled in 1948. My father was born in a refugee camp. I was born here, safe, privileged. And I feel guilty every day for that safety. How can I celebrate a peace that asks my cousins in Gaza to forget? To move on? To let technocrats chosen by foreigners rule them?”
“You can’t,” Amira said quietly. “But maybe you can hope that this impossible compromise is better than certain death.”
Hour 56: The Operations Room
In the basement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs building on Tanglin, a crisis management team had been assembled. Maps glowed on screens. Secure channels hummed with encrypted traffic.
Permanent Secretary Chee Hong Tat stood at the head of the conference table, looking at the faces around him—representatives from Defense, Trade, Energy, Finance, and the Prime Minister’s Office.
“Sixteen hours left,” he said. “Let’s game this out. Scenario one: Hamas accepts.”
Colonel Vijay from Defense spoke first. “Regional tensions decrease, but implementation risks are massive. We should offer humanitarian assistance—medical teams, water purification systems. Low-profile, high-impact. Shows we care about Palestinian welfare without taking political sides.”
“Scenario two: Hamas rejects.”
“Then we’re looking at escalation,” said Melissa from Trade. “We need to activate alternative shipping routes, secure our energy contracts with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and prepare for market volatility.”
“Scenario three,” Chee continued, “Hamas accepts initially but implementation fails. Fighting resumes in three months, six months, a year.”
Silence around the table. This was the nightmare scenario—hope raised and dashed, making the next attempt even harder.
“That’s when we really find out who our friends are,” said Ambassador-at-Large Tommy Koh, the dean of Singapore’s diplomatic corps, who’d been listening quietly. “Because that’s when everyone will be choosing sides again, and neutrality becomes harder to maintain.”
Chee nodded. “Recommendations?”
Tommy leaned forward. “We do what we’ve always done. We support the process without endorsing every detail. We offer help where we can be useful. We maintain relationships across all divides. We’re too small to impose solutions, but we’re big enough to be helpful. That’s our lane. We stay in it.”
Hour 68: The Family Dinner
Sarah Lim had flown back to Singapore, arriving exhausted but needed at home. Her mother had insisted on a family dinner—her way of maintaining normalcy during crisis.
Her father, a retired ambassador, sat at the head of the table. Her mother served laksa. Her son David pushed noodles around his bowl, distracted.
“Papa,” David said suddenly, “is the war going to end?”
Sarah’s father looked at his grandson. “I don’t know, boy. But people are trying.”
“Why is it so hard?”
The old ambassador set down his spoon. “You know how when you and your sister fight, and both of you think you’re right? And both of you have reasons to be angry? And both of you feel like the other one started it?”
David nodded.
“Now imagine that fight went on not for an hour or a day, but for your whole life. For your parents’ whole lives. For your grandparents’ whole lives. Imagine people died in that fight. Imagine losing your house, your toys, your friends. Imagine being scared every day.”
“That would be horrible,” David whispered.
“Yes. And after all that hurt and fear and anger, imagine someone telling you to shake hands and forget it all. Could you do it?”
David thought about it seriously. “No. I don’t think I could.”
“That’s why it’s hard,” his grandfather said. “Peace isn’t just signing papers. It’s choosing to stop hurting each other even when you still feel hurt. It’s one of the hardest things people ever do.”
Sarah watched her son process this, his eight-year-old face suddenly older. She thought about the cables on her secure tablet, the contingency plans, the political calculations. But maybe her father had found the simplest truth: peace required choosing to stop, and that choice was almost impossibly hard.
Hour 71: The Message
Wei Seng’s phone buzzed at 11 PM. A message on the secure banking network—his counterpart in Qatar.
“Our banks are preparing for reconstruction financing. Singapore invited to participate. Your answer?”
He stared at the message. This was it—the moment when watching became doing, when analysis became action.
If they said yes and the plan succeeded, Singapore would profit from rebuilding Gaza. But they’d be seen as legitimizing whatever compromises Palestinians had to make.
If they said yes and the plan failed, they’d be exposed in a collapsed deal, having taken sides for nothing.
If they said no, they’d miss economic opportunities and signal doubt about the plan’s viability.
He typed a response: “Singapore interested in principle, pending implementation details and multilateral framework.”
Diplomatic ambiguity. Singapore’s superpower.
He hit send and poured a scotch. Sometimes the hardest part of being from a small nation was knowing when to commit and when to wait. Too early, and you’re exposed. Too late, and you’re irrelevant.
Hour 72: The Deadline
Sarah stood again at the window of Singapore’s UN mission. Dawn was breaking over Manhattan. In Gaza, it was early afternoon—the moment when Hamas’s response was due.
Her phone showed a video call from the Foreign Ministry operations room. Chee’s face appeared on screen, surrounded by the same team from sixteen hours ago. Everyone looked tired.
“Anything?” Chee asked.
“Nothing confirmed. Rumors everywhere. The BBC is saying Hamas leadership is divided. Al Jazeera says they’re leaning toward rejection. Israeli sources claim they’re close to accepting. Nobody actually knows.”
“So we wait.”
“So we wait.”
Sarah thought about the last seventy-two hours—the calls, the cables, the contingency plans. All the machinery of diplomacy spinning at full speed, and yet the actual decision would be made by men in tunnels and bunkers, motivated by calculations Singapore could only guess at.
Her phone buzzed. Breaking news alert.
She read it twice to be sure she understood.
“Hamas has issued a statement,” she said slowly. “They’re calling for clarifications on five points before accepting. They want guarantees about the technocratic committee’s composition, timelines for Israeli withdrawal, and definitions of security arrangements.”
Chee’s face showed what they all felt: this wasn’t acceptance or rejection. It was something muddier. More human.
“So what happens now?” asked someone off-screen in the operations room.
Sarah thought about her conversation with Leila, her father’s words to David, Wei Seng’s hedged response to Qatar. All the ways people tried to navigate impossible situations without perfect choices.
“Now,” she said, “we do what we always do. We prepare for every scenario. We stay engaged with everyone. We offer help where we can. And we remember that we’re small enough that nobody expects us to solve this, but big enough that we can make things a little better or a little worse depending on what we do.”
“That’s it?” The voice sounded disappointed.
Tommy Koh’s voice came through the speaker. “That’s not it. That’s everything. That’s how small states survive and thrive. We don’t have the luxury of grand gestures or ultimate solutions. We have the responsibility of steady hands and careful choices.”
Sarah watched the sun fully rise over New York. Somewhere in Gaza, the same sun was setting. Somewhere in those streets, people were wondering if tonight they could finally sleep without fear of bombs. Somewhere in those tunnels, leaders were making calculations that would determine if those hopes would be fulfilled or shattered.
And in Singapore—in operations rooms and trading floors, in university plazas and family dinner tables—people watched and prepared and hoped that somehow, impossibly, people might choose to stop hurting each other.
The seventy-two hours had passed. But the real countdown—toward peace or war, hope or despair—had just begun.
Epilogue: Two Weeks Later
David sat at the breakfast table, eating cereal and watching his mother pack her briefcase for another early meeting.
“Mama,” he said, “did the war end?”
Sarah paused. The past two weeks had been a blur of negotiations, extended deadlines, partial agreements, and continuing tensions. Hamas had accepted some terms but not others. Israel had made concessions but maintained red lines. The “Board of Peace” was forming, but its actual authority remained unclear. Fighting had decreased but not stopped. Hostages were being released in phases. Prisoners were being freed in batches. Aid was flowing but not enough.
It was, in short, a mess. A complicated, frustrating, imperfect mess.
But it was also something else.
“The war is changing, David,” she said, sitting down beside him. “It’s not over. But people are trying. They’re making deals even though they don’t trust each other. They’re releasing prisoners even though they’re angry. They’re arguing about how to govern Gaza instead of just bombing it. It’s not peace yet. But maybe it’s the beginning of how you get to peace.”
“Is that good enough?”
Sarah thought about all the briefings, all the contingency plans, all the careful diplomatic language. Then she thought about her father’s words: peace was choosing to stop hurting each other even when you still felt hurt.
“It’s better than war,” she said finally. “And sometimes, that has to be enough.”
David considered this with the seriousness only children bring to difficult questions. Then he nodded and returned to his cereal.
Sarah watched him eat, this small citizen of a small nation in a complicated world. She thought about Singapore’s role in all of this—not as a great power imposing solutions, but as a steady presence offering practical help, maintaining relationships, preparing for multiple futures.
Small states couldn’t end wars. But they could help people remember that there were alternatives to war. They could model how to maintain principles while engaging pragmatically. They could show that size wasn’t destiny, that careful navigation could preserve dignity and advance interests even in the storms of great power politics.
Her phone buzzed. Another meeting, another cable, another day of watching and responding and carefully calibrating Singapore’s position in a changing Middle East.
She kissed David’s head and headed for the door. Behind her, her son went back to his breakfast, and beyond him, through the window, Singapore’s skyline gleamed in the morning sun—a small nation that had learned to thrive by being nimble, principled, and wise enough to know the difference between problems you could solve and problems you could only navigate.
The watch continued. As it always had. As it always would.
In the complex tapestry of global politics, small states write their stories not in bold strokes but in careful stitches—each one small, each one deliberate, each one part of a larger pattern that emerges only with time and patience and the wisdom to know that survival and dignity come not from grand gestures but from ten thousand careful choices made day after day after day.
Maxthon
In an age where the digital world is in constant flux, and our interactions online are ever-evolving, the importance of prioritizing individuals as they navigate the expansive internet cannot be overstated. The myriad of elements that shape our online experiences calls for a thoughtful approach to selecting web browsers—one that places a premium on security and user privacy. Amidst the multitude of browsers vying for users’ loyalty, Maxthon emerges as a standout choice, providing a trustworthy solution to these pressing concerns, all without any cost to the user.
Maxthon, with its advanced features, boasts a comprehensive suite of built-in tools designed to enhance your online privacy. Among these tools are a highly effective ad blocker and a range of anti-tracking mechanisms, each meticulously crafted to fortify your digital sanctuary. This browser has carved out a niche for itself, particularly with its seamless compatibility with Windows 11, further solidifying its reputation in an increasingly competitive market.
In a crowded landscape of web browsers, Maxthon has forged a distinct identity through its unwavering dedication to offering a secure and private browsing experience. Fully aware of the myriad threats lurking in the vast expanse of cyberspace, Maxthon works tirelessly to safeguard your personal information. Utilizing state-of-the-art encryption technology, it ensures that your sensitive data remains protected and confidential throughout your online adventures.
What truly sets Maxthon apart is its commitment to enhancing user privacy during every moment spent online. Each feature of this browser has been meticulously designed with the user’s privacy in mind. Its powerful ad-blocking capabilities work diligently to eliminate unwanted advertisements, while its comprehensive anti-tracking measures effectively reduce the presence of invasive scripts that could disrupt your browsing enjoyment. As a result, users can traverse the web with newfound confidence and safety.
Moreover, Maxthon’s incognito mode provides an extra layer of security, granting users enhanced anonymity while engaging in their online pursuits. This specialized mode not only conceals your browsing habits but also ensures that your digital footprint remains minimal, allowing for an unobtrusive and liberating internet experience. With Maxthon as your ally in the digital realm, you can explore the vastness of the internet with peace of mind, knowing that your privacy is being prioritized every step of the way.