The U.S.-led peace plan for Gaza represents a new and potentially groundbreaking approach to peacemaking, and its success or failure at Monday’s White House summit could determine if it becomes a model for future conflict resolution. The plan moves beyond traditional frameworks by deeply integrating regional powers from the very beginning.
In the past, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have often been a bilateral affair, with the U.S. acting as the primary mediator. This new model, however, is fundamentally multilateral. The 21-point plan was reportedly co-designed with key Arab states, making them active partners and stakeholders in the process, not just observers.
This approach has several advantages. It ensures that any final agreement has broad regional legitimacy, making it more sustainable. It also leverages the financial and political power of the Gulf states, who are expected to fund reconstruction and help guarantee the deal’s security provisions.
Furthermore, it reframes the conflict not just as an Israeli-Palestinian issue, but as a matter of regional stability. By getting Arab nations “on board,” as President Trump says, the plan creates a powerful coalition for peace that isolates extremists and incentivizes compromise.
If this model succeeds in ending the Gaza war, it could be replicated to address other intractable conflicts. It would signal a shift toward a new kind of diplomacy where the U.S. acts as a convener and catalyst, building broad coalitions to solve complex problems. The stakes at the Trump-Netanyahu meeting are therefore not just about Gaza, but about the future of international peacemaking itself.