Former US President Donald Trump's recently proposed peace plan for Gaza has been met with sharp criticism from international observers, with a prominent Pakistani scholar labeling it a calculated 'deception.' Professor Abdullah Nasir has asserted that the plan's primary objective is not genuine peace but to provide a veneer of legitimacy to ongoing Israeli aggression in the besieged Palestinian territory.
Deconstructing the Trump Proposal: A Veil for Continued Hostilities
Professor Abdullah Nasir, a respected academic voice on international relations, provided a detailed critique of the Trump administration's framework. He argued that the plan, unveiled in late December 2025, is strategically designed to normalize the harsh realities on the ground imposed by Israel. Rather than offering a just and equitable solution based on international law and United Nations resolutions, the proposal appears to solidify Israeli territorial gains and security control while offering Palestinians limited autonomy.
The core of the criticism lies in the plan's perceived alignment with Israeli objectives. Nasir pointed out that it fails to address fundamental Palestinian rights, including the right of return for refugees and the status of Jerusalem as a shared capital. Instead, it proposes a fragmented Palestinian entity with severely compromised sovereignty, which analysts say would be unsustainable and unjust.
Historical Context and a Pattern of Failed Initiatives
This is not the first US-led peace initiative to face widespread rejection. Professor Nasir placed the Trump plan within a historical continuum of proposals that have systematically disadvantaged the Palestinian cause. He recalled the 2020 'Peace to Prosperity' plan, championed by the same administration, which was overwhelmingly rejected by the Palestinian leadership and much of the Arab world for its one-sided nature.
The timing and content of the new proposal, according to analysts, suggest an attempt to capitalize on a regional landscape fatigued by conflict. By presenting any form of 'plan' as a diplomatic breakthrough, its architects aim to shift the global narrative and pressure Palestinians into accepting terms that fall far short of their national aspirations and legal rights.
Implications for Regional Stability and International Law
The endorsement of such a plan, Professor Nasir warned, would have dire consequences. It would effectively reward military conquest and annexation, setting a dangerous precedent in international relations. Legitimizing Israeli actions in Gaza under the guise of a peace process could further destabilize the region, embolden hardline positions, and extinguish hopes for a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.
Furthermore, the scholar emphasized that this approach undermines the role of multilateral institutions like the United Nations. It sidelines established legal frameworks governing occupation and the rights of displaced peoples, replacing them with a power-driven negotiation where the stronger party dictates terms. The international community, particularly Muslim nations, faces a critical test in whether to accept this new paradigm or reaffirm their commitment to principled diplomacy.
In conclusion, Professor Abdullah Nasir's analysis presents Trump's Gaza peace plan as a strategic tool for deception. It is framed not as a pathway to justice but as a mechanism to sanitize and legitimize policies of aggression and displacement. The call from this critique is clear: the world must see the plan for what it is and reject any solution that sacrifices fundamental Palestinian rights for the sake of political expediency.
