As a path to peace, many critics have noted the uncertainties and potential weaknesses of the proposed plan.

Despite their reservations, it imagines an end to slaughter, displacement, starvation and maiming in Gaza, and the possibility of restoring homemaking, security and agency.

It offers Israel a chance to find security untainted by shame at the human cost it has exacted from Gaza and the damage to its own good name.

The plan’s design

The plan includes the powers on whose goodwill and cooperation it depends: Israel, Hamas, their Arab neighbours and the United States. It breaks the process into 20 steps, each dependent on the last, aiming to create a peaceful and prosperous Israel and Gaza.

The steps include ceasefire, disengagement and return of hostages. They also require Hamas’s disarmament and the distribution of aid.

Institutional changes involve a transitional government under an international board led by Mr Trump, an economic plan to rebuild Gaza, an economic zone, and institutions of self-government excluding Hamas, with guarantees by surrounding states to neutralise any threat from Gaza.

What should we make of it?

The plan is necessarily vague, yet it contains essential elements of any practicable peace: an end to violence, the support of surrounding powers, the withdrawal of Israeli forces, and the right of Palestinians to reside and eventually govern in their homeland.

This last point is crucial, given the brutality of some solutions proposed after the October 7 attacks.

The plan names conditions and first steps toward ending violence and creates the possibility of new beginnings. It is not surprising that Pope Leo and other unaligned voices immediately endorsed it.

With goodwill and good fortune, the plan could work.

Power and interests

The plan, however, is shaped by power. It was drafted by the United States, which supplied much of the weaponry used in the war. It protects its own interests while not entirely extinguishing those of the weak.

We should be grateful that it does not do the latter. Yet it is best seen as a deal rather than a covenant.

Missing justice

The plan omits processes essential to an impartial and humane resolution. It should include an international investigation into the conduct and goals of the war.

For a lasting peace, justice must be vindicated; otherwise, the resentment of violent memory will haunt what follows. The omission of such a judicial process may be justified by the urgency of peace, but it remains regrettable and costly.

Integrity and implementation

Much depends on the human and political integrity of the international officials overseeing the transition to Palestinian self-governance. This body must serve the people of Palestine, not the interests of the powers involved. Sadly, the identities of those named so far give little reason for confidence.

These comments are necessarily slight.

The plan must be judged not by its shape but by its implementation.

If we are generous, we can be thankful for the agreement reached by Israel and Hamas and pray for the success of the negotiations.

The lives, health and future of the children, women and men at risk in Gaza depend on it. They matter most.

• Andrew Hamilton SJ is the consulting editor of Eureka Street and a writer at Jesuit Social Services.
• Republished with permission of author.