Five Questions on the Ceasefire Deal and the Plan for Gaza

I recently spoke with the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) about the recent ceasefire plan and what it means for Gaza, Palestine, and the region as a whole. The interview covers the situation on the ground in Gaza since the ceasefire was announced, the political framing and implications of the plan, the legacy of figures like Tony Blair, and the international community’s role in either entrenching injustice or working toward real accountability and peace.

This is a moment that demands clarity. The plan, drafted without any Palestinian input, reflects a continuity in U.S. policy that sees Palestinians as a problem to be managed rather than a people with political agency and rights. As I argue in the conversation, no plan that reinforces apartheid and bypasses justice can lead to lasting peace.

You can read the full Q&A below or on IMEU’s site.

Question: Since President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu announced a ceasefire deal and 20-point plan for Gaza on September 29, Israel has continued to carry out attacks and maintained restrictions on food and other aid entering Gaza, violating its commitments under the deal. How would you describe the situation on the ground in Gaza today?

Jehad Abusalim: The situation on the ground in Gaza remains devastating. While a ceasefire was announced, there has been no meaningful improvement in the daily lives of Palestinians. Israel has continued to carry out attacks, killing over 200 people since the ceasefire supposedly took effect—including 104 in the past 24 hours alone, including 46 children. Aid remains severely restricted. Only limited supplies have entered, and much of the population is still without access to enough food, clean water, medicine, or proper shelter. Many victims remain trapped under the rubble, as no heavy equipment has been allowed in to aid rescue or reconstruction efforts.

The health sector has collapsed. Hospitals are barely functioning, doctors are overwhelmed, and patients are dying from treatable injuries and illnesses. Unexploded ordinances scattered across neighborhoods continue to pose a lethal threat to civilians.

While global attention has focused on the recovery of Israeli hostage remains, Palestinians in Gaza are still living through the core realities of genocide—ongoing blockade, displacement, destruction, and the constant threat of renewed bombardment. What we’re witnessing is not a transition to peace, but the continuation of violence in a slightly altered form/scale, with the ever-present risk of escalation back to mass killing, as we saw on Tuesday.

Q: The plan for ending Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza that was announced by Trump and Netanyahu was drafted primarily by Trump’s son-in-law and longtime close family friend of Netanyahu, Jared Kushner, with input from Netanyahu. It makes numerous demands of Palestinians, including disarming Hamas and major reforms to the West Bank-based, western-backed Palestinian Authority, while saying nothing about Israel’s military occupation or theft of Palestinian land in the West Bank or East Jerusalem or its relentless expansion of illegal settlements, which are a major obstacle to peace.

If Palestinians meet all the conditions imposed on them, the plan only offers a faint possibility of one day having a Swiss cheese Palestinian “state” devoid of any sovereignty, surrounded by Israeli settlements, walls, and military checkpoints, and only if Israel allows it. How would you characterize the plan?

JA: This plan was drafted without any input from Palestinians and continues a long-standing US pattern of sidelining them from decisions about their own future. It does not mark a rupture from past US policy but rather extends the same approach we saw under the first Trump administration and in many previous administrations. The core issue remains: Palestinians are treated not as a political people with national rights and aspirations, but as a problem to be managed.

The plan reflects a fundamental refusal to engage Palestinians as a political group with legitimate demands for freedom and self-determination. Even as unprecedented diplomatic steps have occurred—such as direct US contacts with Hamas—those interactions have focused on tactical concerns, not political substance.

By ignoring Israel’s illegal occupation, settlement expansion, and system of apartheid, and by proposing a fragmented, non-sovereign entity as the end goal, this plan reaffirms US bias and preference for managing conflict through economic and security arrangements. Like the failed frameworks before it, this plan will only reproduce the very conditions that fuel instability, bloodshed, and resistance in Palestine and the region.

Q: Trump appointed himself to head the so-called “Board of Peace” that will rule Gaza under the plan for the foreseeable future, with former British prime minister Tony Blair also on the board playing a key role. What do you think of Blair’s involvement, particularly given Britain’s history as a former colonial power in Palestine that was instrumental in the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948?

JA: For Palestinians, Blair’s involvement is a clear signal that the same failed logic of past interventions remains the same: avoid serious political solutions and instead manage the crisis in Israel’s favor. Blair carries with him the legacy of Britain’s colonial role in Palestine and his central role in the Iraq War—a war that devastated an entire country and destabilized the region for decades.

But beyond that, Blair’s tenure as the Quartet’s envoy to the Middle East from 2007 to 2015 offers important context regarding his potential role. Rather than pushing for a final status agreement or real political progress, Blair’s office focused on infrastructure projects and promoting the idea of “economic peace.” That shift—from diplomacy rooted in political rights and resolutions to a framework focused on economic management—mirrors the very core of the current plan and its direction.

Blair’s return in this new role is not incidental. His extensive regional business ties, political relationships, and post-premiership consulting ventures have positioned him as someone who facilitates elite-level deals, not justice. His appointment affirms that this so-called peace plan prioritizes commercial and strategic interests over Palestinian freedom and independence. It is a continuation of the status quo—colonial in spirit, managerial/business-oriented in structure, and fundamentally disconnected from the realities and aspirations of Palestinians.

Q: Governments in the region and around the world have welcomed the plan. Some of them are sincerely motivated by a desire to end the slaughter and others are complicit in Israel’s genocide and just want an end to the political headache it has caused them domestically given the outrage at Israel’s actions among their publics. What would you say to these governments and what would you like them to do to help move the region towards a true and lasting peace?

JA: The desire to end the bloodshed is necessary and urgent, but history has shown us that ceasefire agreements alone do not address the deeper causes of violence. As we’ve seen in Gaza—and before that in places like Lebanon—ceasefires may pause the killing temporarily, but they do not stop Israel’s continued push for regional dominance through force. Since October 7, 2023, that push has only intensified, with Israel escalating its entitlement to bomb neighboring countries and act with impunity across regional borders.

Governments that truly want to contribute to a just and lasting peace must move beyond rhetorical support and apply real pressure. This means enacting economic sanctions and an arms embargo on Israel. It means ending the flow of weapons and diplomatic cover that enable its aggression. It also requires supporting international efforts to hold Netanyahu - who is facing an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court - and other Israeli officials accountable for war crimes.

Most importantly, there must be a clear and collective stance from the international community to dismantle Israel’s settler-colonial and apartheid system. That system is the root cause of this violence. Any plan that leaves apartheid intact will not bring peace; it will entrench injustice and guarantee future cycles of bloodshed. Justice, accountability, and the end of apartheid must be non-negotiable, especially in light of the genocide Israel unleashed against Gaza, and in light of dangerous steps it is taking in the West Bank.

Q: Do you think this plan has any chance of success of either, a) The stated objective of its architects, bringing to peace the region, or b) Their unspoken objective, permanently subjugating Palestinians under Israel’s apartheid rule?

JA: True peace is only possible when the root causes of violence—occupation, displacement, apartheid, and settler-colonialism—are directly addressed. This plan, unfortunately, does not do that. While it may reduce the intensity of violence or create the appearance of stability in the short term, it does so by entrenching the status quo: placing Israel’s security and regional dominance at the center, while sidelining Palestinians politically and structurally.

The plan does not create a serious political horizon. It offers no meaningful path to Palestinian sovereignty, self-determination, or justice. Instead, it reinforces an approach rooted in economic incentives and security coordination, as though Palestinian demands for freedom and rights can be managed or bought off. Palestinians are treated not as partners in shaping their future, but as a population to be controlled.

So while the plan may not succeed in its stated objective of regional peace, it could very well advance its unstated one: the continued subjugation of Palestinians under a deepening apartheid regime. But history has shown that imposed arrangements built on exclusion and injustice are never sustainable. This plan, like those before it, risks fueling further resistance, instability, and regional fallout, rather than offering a viable path forward.