America presents another plan with big promises
The United States launched yet another Gaza initiative during a meeting on September 23, 2025, featuring President Donald Trump and leaders from eight Arab and Muslim nations. Trump insisted on urgency and declared, “We want to end the war in Gaza. We’re going to end it. Maybe we can end it right now,” according to reporting by Jacob Magid of The Times of Israel. His administration framed the proposal as a coalition plan where Muslim countries would secure Gaza after Israel’s withdrawal. Steve Witkoff, White House envoy, told Axios, “We’re hopeful, and I might say even confident, that in the coming days we’ll be able to announce some sort of breakthrough.” Therefore, Washington highlighted optimism, yet the underlying dynamics echoed previous failures that collapsed under Israeli resistance and American reluctance to confront Netanyahu directly.
Praise from leaders remains ceremonial
Public statements from Arab and Muslim leaders reflected ceremonial politeness rather than genuine confidence in an American-led breakthrough. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan described the session as “very fruitful” and later added that he felt “pleased” after the New York discussions. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi praised Trump’s efforts, declaring, “I appreciate the efforts of President Trump to stop the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip in particular, and his pursuit of peace in the Middle East at large. I value the proposals he presented during his meeting yesterday in New York with a number of Arab and Islamic leaders, which I view as an important foundation upon which we can build further in the coming period to achieve peace.” In addition, leaders of seven Arab and Muslim countries released a joint statement, saying, “We reaffirm our commitment to cooperate with President Trump and emphasize the importance of his leadership in order to end the war and open horizons for a just and lasting peace.” Such words delivered diplomatic cover, but past records reveal ceremonial praise evaporates once Israeli rejection defines the reality of events.
Netanyahu blocks progress and shapes outcomes
Every proposal eventually confronts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose political survival depends on avoiding concessions that could fracture his coalition. Netanyahu bluntly told reporters, “The idea that we will stop the war before achieving all of its goals is out of the question,” according to The Times of Israel. An Israeli official conceded to Axios, “There will be bitter pills we’ll have to swallow,” acknowledging elements of Trump’s framework that Israel rejected. Hamas issued its own response, declaring, “We have never been an obstacle to reaching an agreement. The US administration, the mediators and the world know that Netanyahu is the sole obstructionist in all attempts to reach an agreement.” Yossi Mekelberg, associate fellow at Chatham House, added, “Ending the war as part of an agreement for the release of hostages means a major threat to Netanyahu and he’s not prepared to accept it, so he’s violating it, he’s screwing it all the time.” Therefore, Netanyahu’s role dominates the process, and his calculations about political survival continue to obstruct any external framework, regardless of praise from partners.
Conditions that Israel refuses to meet
Arab states outlined demands that clashed with Israeli conduct, exposing contradictions that doomed similar plans in the past. According to Axios reporting, they stated, “Israel will not annex parts of the West Bank or Gaza. Israel will not occupy parts of Gaza. Israel will not build settlements in Gaza. Israel will stop undermining the status quo at the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Humanitarian aid to Gaza will immediately increase.” An Arab official told Barak Ravid of Axios, “For the first time we felt there was a serious plan on the table. President Trump wants this chapter to be over so that we can move forward to better things in the region.” Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto went further, pledging, “We are ready to take our part in this journey towards peace. We are willing to provide peacekeeping forces,” as quoted by Al Jazeera. Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani appealed directly to Trump, saying, “We count on you and your leadership … to end this war and to help the people of Gaza.” Therefore, these declarations highlighted unity in words, yet they confronted Israel’s entrenched positions and Netanyahu’s absolute refusal to cede meaningful ground.
Gaza’s devastation eclipses diplomatic theater
The cost of Israel’s campaign overshadowed the diplomatic theater of coalition meetings, creating a grim backdrop that stripped credibility from proposed frameworks. Gaza’s Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health reported, “More than 65,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed by Israel in Gaza since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks on Israel,” in numbers cited by Axios reporting. Such staggering losses made every declaration in New York sound detached from realities in the ruins of Gaza’s neighborhoods and hospitals. Trump promised action, yet promises faded against the devastation, and Netanyahu continued military advances that contradicted each declared condition. Trump himself admitted the urgency, stating before the meeting, “We’re going to talk about Gaza. We’re going to see if we can do something about it. We want to stop that. We want to get our hostages back, or their hostages back,” according to The Times of Israel. Therefore, the image of diplomacy clashed with the bloody arithmetic of Israel’s campaign, which left civilians absorbing the consequences of failed diplomacy.
Recycled plans, repeated failures
This latest American plan recycled earlier initiatives that ended with stalemates, exposing Washington’s unwillingness to confront Israel directly and enforce conditions required by its partners. U.S. officials admitted the proposal was not fundamentally new, with one acknowledging to Axios, “Tomorrow’s meeting could be fairly significant. We have a pretty good idea of the contours for ending the war. We want to present what we think is the only viable path forward and we want regional buy-in and support to make it successful.” Arab leaders offered encouragement, yet they remembered past failures and recognized Netanyahu’s ability to block concessions without cost. Hamas reinforced the point by accusing Netanyahu of obstructing agreements, and Mekelberg described his behavior as driven by personal and political survival. Therefore, the cycle repeats: Washington announces, Arab leaders applaud, Israel objects, and Gaza bleeds under the weight of ongoing war.
A cycle of diplomacy without enforcement
The pattern across these meetings remains consistent, exposing the emptiness of American proposals that collapse when tested against Israel’s rejection. Publicly, leaders praise and issue joint statements, yet privately they acknowledge that Netanyahu dictates the limits of any American plan. Washington shifts responsibility to Muslim partners while shielding Israel from pressure, a dynamic that ensures the cycle continues without resolution. Each proposal becomes another chapter of diplomatic theater disconnected from realities on the ground where bombs keep falling and civilians continue dying. Therefore, America’s latest Gaza gambit looks like the ones before it: another mirage in the desert of failed diplomacy.
