Trump has promised peace for Gaza. Private documents paint
a grim picture.
The documents, presented in Israel last month to officials from the
Departments of State and Defense, raise concerns including whether a
multinational security initiative meant to keep the peace in Gaza can really be
deployed.
By Dasha Burns, Felicia Schwartz, Nahal Toosi and Paul McLeary11/11/2025
05:55 AM EST
Some Trump administration
officials are deeply concerned that the Gaza peace deal between Israel and
Hamas could break down because of the difficulty implementing many of its core
provisions, as private documents obtained by POLITICO and circulating among
U.S. officials underscore the lack of a clear path forward.
The compendium of
documents was presented last month during a two-day symposium for U.S. Central
Command and members of the newly created Civil-Military Coordination Center,
which was established in southern Israel as part of the peace agreement between
Israel and Hamas that went into effect Oct. 10.00:0202:00
Lt. Gen. Michael Fenzel,
the United States security coordinator for Israel-Palestinian Authority,
convened approximately 400 people at the event from the State Department,
Defense Department, nongovernmental organizations and private companies like
RAND.
The presentation surfaces
a particular concern about whether a so-called International Stabilization
Force — a multinational security initiative meant to keep the peace in Gaza —
can really be deployed. One slide shows an arrow with a question mark on it
linking the first and second phases of the U.S.-brokered peace plan,
underscoring the uncertainty about its prospects.
POLITICO obtained a copy
of the documents presented there from a participant.
How to transition from
Phase 1 to Phase 2?
Phase 1
- Cessation of military operations
- IDF withdrawal yellow line
- Hostage return
- Prisoner release
- Humanitarian surge
- ISF
Phase 2
- Hamas disarmament
- IDF withdrawal (perimeter)
- Transitional Palestinian
governance
- Oversight by Board of Peace
- PA reform
- Economic development
A
recreation of a document obtained by POLITICO.
Among the PowerPoint
slides and decks presented at the symposium were materials from U.S. government
agencies, “situation reports” on conditions in Gaza and advisory documents from
the Blair Institute, the think tank helmed by former British Prime Minister
Tony Blair, who has been involved in peace negotiations, according to the
participant. A second person, a foreign official not at the event who works for
an international ally, confirmed the documents’ authenticity. A third person, a
U.S. defense official, said the slides reflect the administration’s close-held
concerns about the region’s future.
The 67 slides broken into
six segments paint a vivid picture of the hurdles the Trump administration and
its allies in the region face in creating the “lasting peace” President Donald
Trump seeks and are in stark contrast to the mostly rosy rhetoric emanating
from top administration officials.
Yet the documents, which
do not contain classified material, also suggest that the administration is
committed to the peace agreement, despite its complexity. One organizational
chart, included in the documents, details plans for significant U.S. involvement
in Gaza even beyond security matters, including overseeing economic
reconstruction.
Eddie Vasquez, a State
Department spokesperson for the administration’s team of officials tasked with
implementing the peace plan said in a statement: “This story demonstrates a
complete ignorance of the workings of the Gaza effort. Everyone wants to be a
part of President Trump’s historic Middle East peace effort.”
Vasquez added: “From the
moment President Trump announced his 20 Point Plan, there has been an avalanche
of ideas, suggestions, and proposals from dozens of countries and NGOs on an
array of issues. We couldn’t possibly comment on the contents of the thousands
of ideas and proposals that may or may not have been reviewed. The Trump
administration will continue to uphold the ceasefire and effectively implement
President Trump’s 20 Point Plan.”
The first set of documents
in the presentation is titled “20 PP: Phase II + Security Challenges and
Opportunities.”
A spokesperson for the
Defense Department did not respond to requests for comment.
A
potential quagmire
It is not clear who
authored which documents or who specifically inside the administration has seen
them, but the symposium participant said they are table-setter slides from the
first third of the event and are not the entirety of what was presented.
The Blair Institute
declined to comment but a person at the organization said two documents it
authored in the tranche are factual assessments, meaning the group doesn’t take
a position on the challenges ahead.
The materials, which were
compiled by the symposium participant who is involved in the peace planning
process but is not a member of the Trump administration, underscore how Trump
could be caught in the same quagmire as many of his predecessors — mediating an
intractable conflict in the Middle East without the patience, resources or
partnerships needed to see a plan through. Like the four other people quoted in
this article, the symposium participant was granted anonymity to provide
private information about the peace plan.
Trump, who ran on an
“America First” platform that condemned reckless democracy building in the
region, is particularly vulnerable to political backlash if it appears the
United States is once again engaged in an endless commitment despite little
tangible progress.
“Divorced from the peace
deal is a plan of how to actually implement this peace deal,” said the
symposium participant. “Everyone is floating around at 40,000 feet and nobody
is talking operations or tactics.”
An
enormous endeavor
The presentation,
including one section titled, “The Hard Work Begins Now: Implementing President
Trump’s Plan,” does not propose concrete policy solutions. Instead, it lays out
a multitude of obstacles Washington and its partners face in trying to convert
a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas into a lasting peace and reconstruction
plan.
The U.S. military has some
plans about how to support a transition but the State Department, weakened by
cuts to foreign assistance and other changes, is yet to play a significant role
in developing options, said a fourth person, a U.S. official familiar with the
planning.
Governance Vacuum
- Board of Peace - unstaffed;
requires capacity and possibly hundreds of positions
- Absence of legitimate Palestinian
partner
- Technocratic committee - approval
pending
- Palestinian security force and
police force: vetting, training and deploying take time
- Israel and PA both have veto
(albeit different) power
- “Don’t ask, don’t tell”
- Dotted line: PA institutions but not political
leadership
A
recreation of a document obtained by POLITICO.
David Schenker, who served
as assistant secretary of State for the Middle East during Trump’s first term,
pointed out that the administration has a handful of people tackling a huge
number of crises around the world — and that Gaza alone was a full-time job.
“This is an enormous
endeavor and you need sustained, high-level attention,” he said. “You also need
empowered bureaucrats to see the project through. The administration took its
victory lap after the initial cease-fire and hostage release, but all the hard
work, the real hard work, remains.”
In mid-October, Trump
celebrated the ceasefire during a trip to the region. “It’s the start of a
grand concord and lasting harmony for Israel and all the nations of what will
soon be a truly magnificent region,” he said in Jerusalem at the Knesset.
Nearly a month after that
speech, “it’s time for the administration to put meat on the bone,” said the
fourth person, the U.S. official familiar with the planning.
That would include the
need for the administration to adequately account for the extreme destruction
to the tiny enclave’s physical or civil infrastructure, the first person who
participated in the symposium said.
The biggest hurdles after
two years of war are vast. In addition to setting up the International
Stabilization Force, they also include managing Israeli hesitation to withdraw
from Gaza as Hamas continues to flex its muscles, and properly staffing key institutions,
such as the “Board of Peace,” that would oversee the peace plan.
What’s more, the
administration must confront a desire from the Palestinian Authority to shape
events in Gaza despite Israel’s opposition; and questions about allies’
commitment to providing leadership and resources.
The
security vacuum
The Palestinian body that
ultimately governs Gaza will need “long-term U.S. and international support,”
one document states. “Security and police forces may need outside funding and
advising for decades.”
One slide in the
presentation titled “Gaza Situation Report” by the Blair Institute and dated
Oct. 20 surveys the immense destruction after the war and poses a series of
lingering questions, such as how fast any transition could take place and the
extent that Hamas, the militant group that first took over the territory in
2007, will cooperate to disarm.
It notes that “Hamas [is]
reasserting authority and filling the security vacuum through coercive
enforcement, policing.” The Israel Defense Forces control 53 percent of Gaza,
with 95 percent of Gaza’s population in the 47 percent Israel doesn’t control, according
to one of the sections. It also says Hamas has redeployed 7,000 “security
personnel” in these areas. Only 600 aid trucks a day are currently reaching the
area and “major bottlenecks” remain to distribute the amount necessary.
A slide in another
document that appears to be from the U.S. government and is called “Threats to
Humanitarian and Security Operations in Hamas-Free Zones in Gaza,” argues
“Hamas is buying time for eventual reassertion of control. Every delay works in
their favor.” It says the militants will use tactics ranging from pushing
propaganda to hiding behind proxy attacks to regain power, all while counting
on international initiatives to “fade.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio admitted that the path to peace is
fraught during a press conference at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on Oct. 22.
Asked about the potential annexation of the West Bank by Israel and violence by
Israeli settlers, Rubio said, “Every day is going to bring challenges like
that, but it’s also going to bring opportunities.”
“We’ve got to deal with
the challenges and make sure they don’t unravel this. So I’m not worried about
it, but we’re aware that these are challenges that we have to confront. But
yeah, I mean, it’s not — if this was easy, it would have been done 30 years
ago,” he said.
The symposium presentation
made clear that quickly standing up the International Stabilization Force is
crucial, but there are huge challenges to doing so. Outstanding questions about
the ISF include its legal mandate, its rules of engagement, how it will be
composed, where it will be located and how it will be coordinated, though one
slide says the ISF is supposed to be “U.S. coordinated.”
Earlier this month, the
U.S. began circulating a draft resolution at the United Nations to authorize
the International Stabilization Force, according to a copy of the draft
obtained by POLITICO.
Will the
plan hold?
Many of the countries the
U.S. hopes will participate have expressed to Washington that they will
contribute funds or other resources only if it has a U.N. mandate.
The U.S. plans an
international donor conference after the U.N. Security Council resolution
passes, though there is no clear timetable.
“We’re waiting on the U.N.
right now, after which there’ll be an international donor conference, then
countries will start pledging security forces. Right now, that’s the focus,”
the defense official said. The official said they worried that the Gaza plan
will hold amid all of the agreements needed from different governments to
ensure it is workable over a long period of time.
Indonesia, Azerbaijan and
Pakistan have offered to provide troops, as POLITICO has previously reported. Turkey has also
offered, said the foreign official. Israel is wary of letting Turkish troops
participate, that person said.
“There’s a struggle to get
any country in the area to commit forces,” said the symposium participant. Some
countries would “happily write a check but they don’t want to send manpower.”
Other documents note
lingering disagreements between Israel and the Palestinians about who will
ultimately be in charge of Gaza.
The Palestinian Authority
expects to run, secure and control the enclave, as it did prior to 2007, when
Hamas ousted it by force. The Palestinian Authority currently governs parts of
the West Bank.
But the Israeli government
rejects the Palestinian Authority and is opposed to it having it rule Gaza.
Trump’s 20-point peace plan says the Palestinian Authority can only participate
once it has reformed itself. Even if Israel were to agree to a Palestinian
Authority role, the body’s track record in Gaza is poor. It was never popular
among Gaza’s Palestinians; they chose Hamas over its representatives in 2006
elections.
An organizational chart
tucked in the documents spells out how Gaza will be managed and run. The chart
sketches out significant U.S. involvement aside from security, including
overseeing economic reconstruction.
But it’s unclear how much
time and American money Trump is willing to invest in Gaza, even though he once
suggested it be emptied of Palestinians and turned into a U.S.-run “riviera.”
A fifth person, another
U.S. official familiar with the administration’s internal discussions about
Gaza said, “There’s a bigger question, which is whether it’s advisable or
consistent with the president’s America First agenda for the United States to
have a long term involvement in Gaza. This is an issue that’s being worked
out.”
The official added,
however, that the Trump team believes “that we can get other partners to play a
bigger role.”
