A controversial second phase of a US-backed Gaza plan was announced Wednesday by Steve Witkoff, Special Envoy for President Donald Trump, triggering immediate criticism and raising serious questions about its feasibility and potential humanitarian impact. The plan, framed as a “20-point plan” intended to resolve the Gaza conflict, ostensibly moves beyond a fragile ceasefire to encompass demilitarization, a technocratic governance structure and reconstruction.
The core of the newly unveiled phase involves the establishment of a Palestinian technocratic interim administration in the Gaza Strip, under the auspices of a newly formed National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG). Witkoff explicitly stated that this transition will be accompanied by “complete demilitarization” and reconstruction efforts. The announcement was coupled with a stern warning to Hamas, demanding “unconditional fulfillment” of their obligations, including the immediate return of remaining hostages, with the implicit threat of “severe consequences” should they fail to comply.
However, the viability of the plan is already under scrutiny. The initial ceasefire phase, heralded as a crucial first step, remains precarious, evidenced by UNICEF’s recent report documenting nearly one hundred Palestinian children killed since its implementation. This stark statistic underscores the ongoing instability and reinforces concerns about the plan’s ability to meaningfully protect civilian lives.
Further complicating matters is Israel’s recent withdrawal of operating licenses for 37 international aid organizations at the start of the year, significantly hindering the delivery of essential supplies to Gaza. This action, sharply criticized by the President of the UN General Assembly, Annalena Baerbock and the International Committee of the Red Cross, directly contradicts the stated goal of reconstruction and humanitarian support. Critics argue that the restrictions demonstrate a lack of genuine commitment to facilitating aid and place significant burdens on a population already facing dire circumstances.
The plan’s reliance on a technocratic governance model for Gaza, bypassing traditional political structures, has also drawn political fire. Experts suggest that imposing an externally driven administrative structure risks alienating the Gazan population and potentially exacerbating existing tensions. Doubts remain regarding the legitimacy and long-term sustainability of such a system without genuine Palestinian representation and agency. Ultimately, the success of this second phase and the broader 20-point plan, hinges on addressing the underlying political grievances and ensuring equitable access to aid, challenges that appear formidable given the current operational realities.
