The basis for the current negotiations is a plan put forward by the Trump administration, a proposal that critics uniformly describe as heavily biased in favor of the Israeli occupation. While the plan’s provisions for a ceasefire, a halt to displacement, and the introduction of humanitarian aid are viewed as essential positives, its underlying maps and political terms are seen as cementing Israeli territorial claims. This has led to concerns that the negotiations are building on a fundamentally unbalanced foundation, potentially compromising a lasting and equitable peace.
Simultaneously, a major point of contention is the deliberate composition of the Palestinian delegation. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), internationally recognized as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, has been sidelined from the proceedings. In its place, various Palestinian factions are participating, a structure that critics argue deepens political divisions and undermines national unity.
According to Al Quds' columnist Baha Rahal, the marginalization of the PLO is viewed by many analysts as a strategic victory for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and aligns with the prior stance of the Trump administration, which had actively worked to diminish the organization's role. The arrangement also benefits factions like Hamas, which now dominates the negotiation scene. The convergence of these interests—Israeli, American, and factional—in excluding the PLO has created a significant rift, casting doubt on the legitimacy and long-term viability of any agreement reached.
As the world watches for a breakthrough that would end the devastating war, the fundamental architecture of the talks themselves raises critical questions. The reliance on a disputed U.S. plan and the exclusion of the Palestinians' primary representative body threaten to create a fragile agreement, one that may halt immediate violence but fails to establish a unified path toward a stable future.