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”.
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?