Why the West Bank Is Suspiciously Missing From Trump's Plan for 'Middle East Peace'

 The plan presented by U.S. President Donald Trump to end the war in Gaza and usher in Middle East peace, referred to as the 20-point plan, has captivated the attention of observers and policymakers alike. Yet in the rush to analyze these most recent cease-fire terms and whether they will be accepted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as well as Hamas, one critical omission looms: the future of the West Bank.

While the White House touts this framework as a grand pathway to regional stability and peace between Israel and its pro-American Arab neighbors, it remains deafeningly silent on the political status of the West Bank and the fate of the Palestinian Authority.

Of course, such an omission is in line with the Israeli government's perilous strategy of "managing the conflict," which both paved the way to the October 7 attacks – and guarantees ongoing, relentless and deeply dangerous future instability down the road.

But the plan's content reveals that its gaps and conditions are not neutral policies; they function as a geopolitical wrecking ball, actively destabilizing the West Bank, further weakening the PA and quietly facilitating permanent Israeli occupation.

Therefore, while the framework seeks to solve the immediate crisis in the Strip, it risks creating long-term, irreversible instability in the West Bank – Palestine's undisputed demographic, economic and strategic center.

The first sign of this reality is that the 20-point plan does not even mention the West Bank. The proposal's complete oversight of its current political status, the rights of its residents or the future borders of a potential Palestinian state is indeed an effective endorsement of the status quo that benefits the governing Israeli coalition and perhaps was even composed to allow Netanyahu to remain with his far-right bedfellows, ensuring his political survival even after the end of the Gaza war.

And thus, the Israeli government's stance that the Palestinian Authority is a liability has gone unchallenged by the Trump administration amid intensifying Israeli efforts to annex parts of the West Bank.

In this way, the proposed path for governance in Gaza, and supposedly for Middle East peace serves only to deepen the PA's legitimacy crisis. It envisions a temporary transitional body of technocrats overseeing Gaza's affairs, with the PA only potentially rising to power after it has undergone a sweeping, externally supervised reform program. The vagueness surrounding the PA's potential return to Gaza challenges the entire premise of its very existence: as a precursor to an official Palestinian state.

Furthermore, the so-called Gaza International Transitional Authority is highly suspicious, and largely avoids specifying the involved actors. Those who are identified include, for example, figures like former U.S. envoy Jared Kushner, who has a history of adversarial positions toward the PA and was linked to the controversial "Trump Riviera plan" for ethnically cleansing the Strip.

Such a body of technocrats could be a deliberate mechanism to permanently sever the PA from Gaza and Gaza from the PA, ignoring the crucial reality that the PA is the only political body that could credibly counterbalance Hamas.

Yet the most damaging element to the PA's standing comes not from its exclusion from governance, but from the plan's mechanism of prisoner exchange with Israel.

According to the proposal, 250 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences are to be released by Israel. The stark political reality is that most of these Palestinian prisoners are from the West Bank. These prisoners – who are viewed by Palestinian public opinion as symbols of resistance – will be released as a direct consequence of a deal brokered through Hamas' militant approach.

By contrast, the PA has long championed a diplomatic, non-violent and political path toward statehood and freedom for prisoners. With this in mind, the optics of Hamas securing the freedom of hundreds of West Bank Palestinians, while the PA's diplomatic efforts remain fruitless, would be seen as another defeat for the PA's non-violent approach.

This outcome would not only further delegitimize the PA in the eyes of its own population but could also potentially lead to its collapse, throwing the entire West Bank into a governance vacuum.

In the economic realm as well, the Trump plan speaks optimistically of investment opportunities as part of Gaza's reconstruction. Once again, the plan entirely overlooks the potential for significant PA-driven investments that would bring tangible economic opportunities for Palestinians from the West Bank. Currently, these individuals and businesses who won't be given the chance to contribute to and profit from rebuilding Gaza – a major loss for the Palestinian economy.

If the blueprint for future Palestinian prosperity is exclusively focused on Gaza, driven by foreign powers and bypassing the PA, it effectively creates two separate, unequal and politically disconnected Palestinian entities. This is not a path to peace; it is a mechanism for cementing fragmentation and denying the Palestinians a prosperous future.

Ultimately, the 20-point plan, by focusing solely on Gaza's security and reconstruction, becomes a framework for the permanent political separation of the Palestinian territories, playing directly into the hands of Israel's far-right annexation fever dreams.

The stability of the West Bank is inextricably linked to the viability of the PA. When the international community promotes a solution that ignores the PA's core political interests, challenges its diplomatic viability and rewards Hamas for achieving what the political faction could not, the non-violent path championed by Ramallah loses all currency.

If the 20-point plan is to succeed in bringing not just a temporary cease-fire but lasting regional peace, its authors must recognize that peace cannot be partitioned. The future of Gaza is inextricably linked to the viability of the West Bank.

Ignoring the political plight of the West Bank in favor of a Gaza-centric technical fix is not merely bad policy; it is a profound political risk that guarantees the rise of instability in the occupied territories and ensures the eventual collapse of the Palestinian leadership that the plan claims it seeks to reform.