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 Civilian 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.
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, non-governmental 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.
Among the Power Point 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.
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 2005 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.”
