Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The writer is a former US secretary of state and professor of international and public affairs at Columbia SIPA
There is a particular kind of diplomatic paralysis that sets in when governments decide that the perfect is the enemy of the possible. I have seen it before in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland and in the Middle East itself. And I see it again now, as Europe and many of its traditional partners approach the Board of Peace and the Trump administration’s 20-point plan for Gaza with the studied scepticism of those who believe they can afford to wait. But we cannot. None of us can.
There is no alternative framework waiting in the wings. No rival coalition is quietly preparing a more viable proposal. The 20-point plan is not the one many of us would have drafted, but it remains the only framework backed by sufficient leverage, political engagement and potential resources to move the parties towards implementation. It has been reinforced through a UN Security Council resolution and further advanced by the roadmap from Nickolay Mladenov and the Board of Peace (which seeks to link reconstruction and governance transition to the dismantling of Hamas’s military infrastructure and longer-term stabilisation in Gaza).
Without such a plan, the crisis in Gaza will only deteriorate, with Hamas retaining both political and practical influence over a devastated population through armed actors, local administrative structures, aid distribution networks and access to basic goods and services. Reconstruction frozen. Investment absent. Civilians trapped in dependency and despair, with reportedly up to 1,000 killed since the ceasefire. Another generation of children growing up amid rubble, fear and hopelessness. There will be no security for Israel. No viable path to Palestinian self-determination.
Gazans understand this as well as anyone: without demilitarisation and a transition away from Hamas rule, there will be no meaningful reconstruction, no realistic prospect that Israel will ever withdraw from the 60 per cent of the Gaza Strip it now controls and no credible pathway towards a future led by Palestinians themselves.
In recent months, international attention has understandably drifted elsewhere. But treating Gaza as secondary is a profound strategic mistake. An unresolved Gaza does not remain contained — it fuels instability across the region. The longer it stays as it is, the more difficult any future political solution becomes. Prolonged paralysis weakens moderate voices, deepens instability and further entrenches realities that will become harder to reverse with time.
The Board of Peace and the plan contain elements many governments dislike or disagree with. Some are uneasy with the political sequencing, sceptical of provisions on Palestinian governance and representation, or wary of placing trust in an American-led framework at a moment when confidence in US leadership has eroded. Many are understandably sceptical of an approach so closely associated with Donald Trump.
I understand that scepticism, and share some of it. Yet if even I, an implacable opponent of President Trump, can accept that this is the best option in a terrible situation, then surely others can too? This moment calls for a greater sense of collective responsibility from Europe, regional partners and the broader international community. Disengagement will not produce a more acceptable alternative.
Strip away the rhetoric and the 20-point plan offers something that, not long ago, many believed was unattainable: an active diplomatic framework backed by meaningful US leverage and sustained engagement from the administration.
And what I have heard from Palestinians, especially those living in or connected to Gaza, is that they want a path out of perpetual crisis, just as many Israelis desire greater security and the dismantling of Hamas’s military infrastructure. Those realities should matter as the international community considers whether to engage or stand aside, because a genuine transformation in Gaza is essential not only for stabilisation and security but also for reunifying Palestinians politically under a reformed and credible leadership. For too long, fragmentation between Gaza and the West Bank, along with the weakening of the Palestinian Authority, has made the prospect of a unified Palestinian political future seem increasingly remote. Meaningful change in Gaza is essential if there is to be any chance of a more durable political resolution.
The process will require pressure and engagement not only from Arab states and Europe but from Israel as well. The Israeli government cannot indefinitely support the broad goals of stabilisation and normalisation while delaying the difficult decisions necessary to move the process forward. Critically, international engagement with the Board of Peace and the plan should not be understood as deference to any one party but as a means of creating collective pressure on all parties to engage seriously and in good faith.
The gleeful anticipation of failure is not just unhelpful. It is strategically self-defeating. The Board of Peace is an improbable vehicle, and the 20-point plan leaves many legitimate concerns unresolved. Governments will continue to disagree with important elements of both. But diplomacy rarely offers a choice between good options and bad ones. The international community cannot claim concern for Palestinian civilians while refusing to engage with the only mechanism currently capable of shifting conditions on the ground. Nor can we continue pretending that paralysis is a neutral position. It is not. Delay has consequences.
The choice for governments is not whether this process is ideal. It is whether they are prepared to help shape an imperfect framework from within or stand aside while more destructive actors shape what comes next.
Credit: Source link
