By: Prachi Kushwah, Research Analyst, GSDN
When former United States President Donald J. Trump unveiled his “Peace to Prosperity” plan on January 28, 2020, the world watched with mixed emotions. Some hailed it as a bold step toward resolving one of the most intractable conflicts in modern history — the Israeli–Palestinian issue. Others saw it as an unrealistic attempt to impose peace rather than nurture it. Five years on, the question still lingers: Was Trump’s peace plan ever built to last?
As a research analyst looking back at its journey, it’s clear that the plan’s story is as much about human aspirations as it is about political maneuvering.
Understanding the Framework of the Plan
At its core, Trump’s plan sought to redraw political and economic realities in the Middle East. It recognized Israeli sovereignty over much of the West Bank — including the Jordan Valley — and offered Palestinians a demilitarized state with limited autonomy. Alongside these political terms came a promise of nearly US$ 50 billion in investments to boost Palestinian infrastructure, jobs, and development. The proposal, introduced with great fanfare at the White House on January 28, 2020, was marketed as a “realistic two-state solution.”
But realism, it turned out, was in the eye of the beholder. The plan was drafted without the participation of Palestinian representatives, who immediately rejected it. By making Jerusalem Israel’s “undivided capital” and offering Palestinians only a distant suburb, Abu Dis, as their capital, the plan appeared one-sided. It demanded Palestinian disarmament and political concessions while offering little in terms of genuine sovereignty.
Legitimacy and Acceptance: The Core Challenge
For any peace initiative to endure, it needs legitimacy — not just political approval, but emotional acceptance from those who live with its consequences. The Trump plan failed this fundamental test. The Palestinian Authority (PA) dismissed it as biased toward Israel, arguing that it endorsed occupation under the guise of peace. Meanwhile, Israeli leaders, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, called it a “historic breakthrough.”
This imbalance doomed the plan’s credibility. When one side sees victory and the other feels betrayal, peace becomes a mirage. The Palestinian rejection meant that the plan never became a shared vision — only a declaration from one side of the negotiating table.
Regional Dynamics and Power Politics
In Middle Eastern diplomacy, no country operates in isolation. The region’s power politics often determine whether a peace plan survives or fails. After the Trump plan’s release, several Arab states — including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan — normalized ties with Israel through the Abraham Accords between August 13, 2020, and December 10, 2020.
While these agreements were celebrated in Washington and Tel Aviv, they bypassed the Palestinian issue altogether. Instead of empowering Palestinians, they made them feel further abandoned. Nations like Iran, Turkey, and Qatar capitalized on this resentment, presenting themselves as the true guardians of the Palestinian cause. Rather than healing divisions, the Trump plan ended up deepening them — not just between Israelis and Palestinians, but within the broader Arab world.
Economic Promises and Ground Realities
Money, as the plan emphasized, can build bridges — but only if there’s trust beneath them. The Trump administration promised a massive US$ 50 billion economic boost to Palestine and its neighbors. On paper, this sounded transformative: new roads, modern hospitals, schools, and tourism initiatives. In reality, those investments never came to life.
By mid-2021, there were no concrete projects or financial commitments to back the promise. For Palestinians struggling under occupation, the proposal felt hollow — a peace bought, not built. Economic prosperity without political dignity rarely wins hearts. What the plan failed to grasp was that people don’t just want jobs; they want justice.
Security Provisions: Strength or Weakness?
Security concerns have always been central to any Middle Eastern peace deal. The Trump plan emphasized Israel’s right to defend itself, granting it continued control over airspace, borders, and even parts of Palestinian territory. It envisioned a “demilitarized” Palestine — a concept that might bring short-term calm but long-term resentment.
History offers lessons here. After the Oslo Accords were signed on September 13, 1993, there was hope — yet over the years, unchecked settlement expansion and restricted movement eroded trust. The Trump plan risked repeating that pattern, cementing control rather than encouraging cooperation. Peace cannot grow in an environment where one side feels permanently confined.
Changing U.S. and Israeli Politics
Politics rarely stands still — especially in Washington and Tel Aviv. When President Joseph R. Biden Jr. took office on January 20, 2021, his administration quietly set aside much of Trump’s Middle East agenda. The White House re-emphasized traditional diplomacy and the need for negotiations based on pre-1967 borders. In Israel, a series of elections between 2021 and 2023 reshaped its leadership, further complicating any consistent follow-up.
Without bipartisan and bi-national support, Trump’s plan became more of a historical document than a living policy. No later government — American or Israeli — fully embraced it, leaving it stranded between legacy and abandonment.
The Human Side of Peace
Beyond speeches and strategy papers, the true measure of peace lies in how it touches everyday lives. A Palestinian farmer cut off from his land, a child stopped at checkpoints on the way to school, an Israeli family fearing rocket attacks — these experiences define whether peace feels real.
Diplomatic plans often ignore these human truths. Yet, it is in these small, everyday interactions that trust can begin to form. Easing border restrictions, promoting people-to-people exchanges, and fostering dialogue through education are as vital as any political agreement. Peace that doesn’t heal hearts will never last on paper.
International Response and Global Shifts
The international community’s reaction to Trump’s plan was cautious. The European Union, on January 29, 2020, reaffirmed its support for a two-state solution aligned with international law. The United Nations echoed this stance, urging direct negotiations instead of unilateral decisions. Meanwhile, China and Russia criticized the plan as an attempt to reshape the region on American terms.
In the years since, the geopolitical map has shifted. The war in Ukraine, beginning February 24, 2022, and new diplomatic alignments — like the Saudi–Iran agreement on March 10, 2023 — have changed priorities. China’s growing role as a mediator, particularly in the Gulf region, shows that the U.S. no longer dominates the Middle East peace narrative. Any future peace framework must now account for this multipolar reality.
What Lies Ahead: Possible Scenarios
- Partial Implementation: Some economic and security measures may continue under new leadership, offering limited calm without lasting peace.
- Policy Reversal: Future U.S. or Israeli governments could formally abandon the plan, reverting to older peace processes.
- Revised Multilateral Effort: A new initiative led jointly by the United States, European Union, and Arab League might adapt elements of the Trump plan into a more inclusive framework.
Conclusion
Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan was bold but incomplete. It reflected a transactional approach — one that sought quick wins rather than genuine reconciliation. As of October 15, 2025, it stands more as a chapter in history than a living vision for peace.
Lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be engineered through power imbalances or economic incentives alone. It requires empathy, mutual respect, and political courage. Until leaders on both sides recognize that peace is not about dominance but coexistence, every plan will fall short of its promise.
The road to peace is long and winding, but it begins with a single truth — no solution will ever work unless it speaks to the hopes, fears, and dignity of the people it’s meant to serve.
