Doha (AFP) – Key Muslim nations on Monday threw their weight behind a plan by US President Donald Trump to end the war in Gaza, even as some Palestinians decried the proposal as a “farce”.
Washington’s European allies urged Hamas to accept the plan, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he supported as he warned the Palestinian armed group of more devastation if it did not comply.
Eight Arab or Muslim-majority nations said in a joint statement that they “welcome the role of the American president and his sincere efforts aimed at ending the war in Gaza”.
They said they “affirm their readiness to engage positively and constructively with the United States and the parties toward finalising the agreement and ensuring its implementation”.
The countries include Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey – which all recognise Israel, although some have turbulent relationships.
Also signing the statement were Qatar, which has played a key mediatory role, and Saudi Arabia, whose future normalisation with Israel is a key goal for Trump and Netanyahu.
Indonesia and Pakistan, the world’s two most populous Muslim-majority countries, also joined the statement.
Indonesia has offered troops as part of a future Gaza force, while Pakistan has been eager to woo Trump and improve its relationship with Washington.
Trump hailed a statement by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, posted on X even before the White House announcement, in which he voiced his “firm belief that President Trump is fully prepared to assist in whatever way necessary” to secure an end to the war.
The Palestinian Authority, which Netanyahu has sought to sideline, was also quick to offer support, welcoming Trump’s “sincere and determined efforts”.
Hamas has yet to comment in depth, saying the group had yet to receive the plan.
But Islamic Jihad, a Palestinian armed group fighting alongside Hamas in Gaza, called the plan “a recipe for continued aggression against the Palestinian people”.
“Through this, Israel is attempting – via the United States – to impose what it could not achieve through war,” it said.
Residents of war-torn Gaza expressed scepticism over the plan, dismissing it as a trick to release hostages that would not end the war.
“We as a people will not accept this farce,” said Abu Mazen Nassar, 52.
Macron hailed Trump’s “commitment to ending the war in Gaza”.
“Hamas has no choice but to immediately free all hostages and follow this plan,” Macron wrote on X.
He also called on Israel to commit “resolutely” to it.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s office said the UK “strongly” supported Trump’s “efforts to end the fighting, release the hostages and ensure the provision of urgent humanitarian assistance for the people of Gaza”.
The plan includes a call for a transitional body in Gaza led by Trump and involving former British prime minister Tony Blair.
“President Trump has put down a bold and intelligent plan which, if agreed, can end the war, bring immediate relief to Gaza, the chance of a brighter and better future for its people, whilst ensuring Israel’s absolute and enduring security and the release of all hostages,” Blair said in a statement.
European Union chief Antonio Costa urged all parties to “seize this moment to give peace a genuine chance”, adding that the “situation in Gaza is intolerable”.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s right-wing government, which has faced growing pressure over its cautious stance, also hailed Trump’s diplomacy.
In a statement, it called on “all sides to seize this opportunity and accept the plan”.
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said the Trump plan "offers a unique opportunity to end the terrible war in Gaza.
“Finally, there is hope for Israelis and Palestinians that this war could soon be over.”
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez – who has accused Israel of committing “genocide” in Gaza – said Madrid “welcomes the peace proposal”.
“We have to put an end to so much suffering,” he said, adding that a two-state solution was “the only one possible”.
Which ones are these? Why do you describe them as ‘muslim majority’, are you implying this a holy war? Or are muslims uniquely opposed to genocide? Because then it’s prudent to remember that Jordan and Egypt are muslim majority countries but among the top enablers and participants in the genocide.
The conflict is over ownership of Palestine. Israel is illegally occupying Palestine. It is an issue.
They will make money through hotels and selling land to settlers, same as he previously said he would. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-gaza-riviera-echoes-kushner-waterfront-property-dreams-2025-02-05/
Let’s go through the plan without the weasel wording.
You accused me of being wrong on the majority of my points, except for one of my two points. The remaining point being that Gaza must be surrendered to Trump and Israel. If we look through the proposal, articles 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19 support my claim.
It’s funny that you complain about weasel wording but can’t see it in yourself or, more likely, allow it for yourself. Your claims that the Palestinians have to kill themselves or leave under this ‘plan’ doesn’t jive with reality.
Donnie knows that staying friends with the sunni states makes him a lot of money. A lot more money than he can ever make from the people that would give that up to add a small strip of land to Israel. Making the supposedly “fully behind Palestine” leaders of these countries lose face completely by having them backing this plan publicly and then shredding it will lose him a lot of money.
It’s much more profitable to continue their alliance. Removing the threat of Hamas in the same way as was done with Hezbollah makes everyone* happy and opens the opportunity to make money from it either way. They can say they saved the Gazans while Israel gets a security upgrade and hostages.
(* except the ultrazionists, which may have swing because they can drop the Israeli government but are still a rather small faction despite what people try to make you believe. If Hamas agree publicly, Bibi will go for elections before he’ll slap Trump with a 180 to please these bozo’s.)
.
Ah yes, the good ol’ “Sir, how dare you imply a religious conflict?!” smh
I’m sorry do you not think this is weasely?
This is article 10. Please explain to me how my abbreviation does anything else than remove positive loading and noise.
They are not Sunni states. They are states. And both are client states of the USA.
21 days ago, the USA invited Palestine to Doha to negotiate. Then they bombed the Palestinian delegation with fighter jets. The Qatari prime minister said “The Qatar-US security and defence partnership is stronger than ever and continues to grow” the following day.
Article 13 enables the death of all Palestinians at the moment of Israel’s choosing. Israel has shown that their goal is the eradication of Palestinians.
This is not a religious conflict. You’re being orientalist. The Israeli’s are not religious, they are just racist. When western nations want emancipation, you don’t ascribe illogical motivations to them, you take it for granted that emancipation is worthwhile.
If you think this proposal has any balance, then go through it again but replace Gaza with Ukraine and Trump with Putin and see if you would consider it viable for Ukraine.
Feel free to let me know where you’re reading that Palestinians should kill themselves. Trumps weaseling is not an excuse to follow his example.
There are eight sunni states that put themselves behind Donnie, including the most important ones. You can try to brush this off because they were already very friendly to him, but yeah, that’s the point.
Sure, and making Bibi publicly apologize to him and Donnie assure they would not allow it to happen again was offered to allow him to save face. Why else do you think they did that?
I don’t know which list they’ve sent you but in mine article 13 is about the disarmament of Hamas
Yeah, thanks for opening my eyes! I’ve just reread the history of the region and indeed, religious differences were never an issue there
I did. Article 13.
Trump’s exact phrasing:
“And other factions” means everyone. It means PFLP, it means everyone in PLO and everyone who is part of some political entity (e.g. a labour union) is directly called out and barred from public life, and then in the same breath all military infrastructure has to be surrendered. It doesn’t say “Hamas’ weapons”, it says all weapons.
If you live next to someone actively trying to kill you and you do not have any means to protect yourself, you will be killed. There are zero steps of assumption or inference required here. It is obviously immediately equivalent to death. You pretending like there’s a semantic difference is dishonesty.
What point were you trying to make that I missed? Is part of the Sunni religion that you must support Donald Trump? Is Donald Trump a Sunni prophet? If that is the point you’re making, then at some point you accepted and internalised some misinformation.
Do you have a recording of this apology? Since it was public, there must be a recording.
I’m not arguing the Qatari administration doesn’t care about saving face. I’m saying the administration isn’t deterred by having to participate in war crimes. Yes, obviously the optics of promising amnesty and initiating a dialogue in the guise of negotiation when your goal is assassination is very bad, and improving optics is worthwhile to the USA, Israel, and Qatar. But the tactic is demonstrably not beyond their evil. Genocide was already their baseline, so any optics management is an uphill battle, and they aren’t going to prioritise it too much.
You’re still being orientalist. It’s very off-putting. Would you accept a fraction of this attitude towards your own home?
.
You seem to want to derail the converstation to make it appear like I argue that it has something to do with the nature of their religion, but they could be worshipping the Holy Teapot as far as I’m concerned. If you want to go into why I think it’s mentionable that basically all of the important sunni states are on board I suggest you start by reading about the Abraham Accords and how that history ties in with what happened with Gaza.
His apology is public in the sense that they proudly and loudly proclaimed he did so before praising Qatar for supporting their plan. Whether he called him buddy or Susan isn’t really the relevant part here
I think it’s interesting that you’re turning from “religion has nothing to do with this” to something like this.
If someone were to say that ‘my home’ (as in the building I live in?) has a history of religious conflict I’d honestly just be stunned and ask them to give me some examples, because I don’t think there are.
If you mean ‘my home region’ then I’d say they’re entirely right: religious conflicts made people do horrible, horrible things to eachother around here, and it’s important to remember that.
But the words you’re using makes it sound more like you don’t honestly believe that there isn’t a religious angle to the conflict with Israel but instead that you think there should be some kind of taboo on it? Because any mention of it would hurt the feelings of those who live in the region?
A word used with its dictionary definition is precise. The fault here is entirely with you for not knowing its dictionary definition. Those aren’t consecutive steps of reason, I repeated the same information multiple times.
If someone threatens you like that, and they say “I will wrong all persons sharing your name”, do you simply assume you aren’t included in the threat? In talking to you, it seems like your only motivation is wasting time and playing devil’s advocate for impossible to defend positions, in hopes of catching an amphibolic technicality.
If that isn’t your position, then clarify your position. Stop with your vague allusions. What point where you trying to make? Why did you previously describe countries as “muslim majority” and “Sunni”? Speaking in dog-whistles only invites assumptions. Clarify your position.
Ah well you see, that’s actually refuted by if you read the history of the Tulkarem electrical safety building codes. Or perhaps it would be better if you actually explained your own position.
Strange that I couldn’t hear it.
I have discovered it is possible to have empathy without religion. It’s even possible to not do tribalism.
It isn’t taboo, it’s wrong. By pretending like the actors are religiously motivated, you’re pretending the Palestinians, driven by the most universal motivation there is, are in actuality esoteric and unrelatable, irrational.
I encouraged you to relate the situation to human beings twice and both times you dodged sharing your reflection. There are human beings in Ukraine, therefore it’s appropriate to ask if they would deserve better than these terms of surrender. The dominant religion doesn’t change that. There are human beings where you live, therefore it’s appropriate to ask if they deserve better than to be misrepresented like you are misrepresenting the Palestinians. There are seven hundred zero-year-olds among those culled by Israel in 2024. Did they choose to die in service of their religion?
If you really want to pretend that religion doesn’t play a part in this conflict, I don’t really see how that would help anyone… It just makes certain behaviour unexplainable for you and, hence, as long as you are in denial of this you won’t be in a position to think of a realistic path forward. Why would Trump have to buy off Malaysia to support his ultimatum and not, say, Brazil?
Regarding Ukraine, I don’t think that religion is a(n important) driver there. That conflict was caused by an internal political rift where one parted wanted to align with the EU and the other with Russia. Which explains why the division isn’t along religious but political (and partly ethnic) lines.
And in the tradition of always finding your last sentences the most revealing: what religion do you believe those zero-year-olds were following?