India must not miss the fine print of Gaza peace plan

PEACE plans usually begin with borders. US President Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza ceasefire plan begins with a timer. Within 72 hours of Israeli assent, all hostages, living and deceased, are to be returned. What follows is less a map than a to-do list: transactional, sequenced, and by West Asia’s standards, even audacious.

Israeli forces would pull back in stages tied to demilitarisation milestones. Hamas exits governance, while Gaza’s services pass to a Palestinian technocratic committee overseen by a Trump-chaired ‘Board of Peace,’ which includes former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. An International Stabilisation Force (ISF) would keep order and train vetted Palestinian police.

The prisoner exchange is choreographed. Nearly 2,000 Palestinians would be freed, including life-term prisoners, balanced by a hostage-for-remains swap and safe passage for militants who disarm. Demilitarisation would be monitored independently, with a weapons buy-back. Israel, meanwhile, keeps a “security perimeter presence” until Gaza is deemed “properly secure.” That hinge, temporary or indefinite, is the plan’s make-or-break.

The optics are unusually broad. Trump is fully invested in it, attaching his name to what he brands the Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict. He has given Hamas barely four days to decide, turning a ceasefire into a countdown. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has endorsed it, saying that it “achieves our war aims”.

The plan also borrows from ideas floated elsewhere. Saudi and French suggestions for international oversight, and Egypt and Jordan’s role in the ISF, draw regional powers into Gaza’s future. That gives it reach, and helps explain why Arab, Muslim and European capitals, as well as China and Russia, have welcomed it. The Palestinian Authority (PA) has offered qualified support. Even Hamas says it will “study” the plan. For once, there is a corridor of possible agreement.

In a shattered enclave, even small openings can feel tangible. If Hamas engages, a clocked hostage release linked to Israeli withdrawals could still the guns quickly, open space for aid, and ease political pressures. No one would be forced to leave Gaza, and those who do would retain the right to return.

Humanitarian reset is built in, not appended, with UN and ICRC-channelled assistance, infrastructure rehabilitation, and guaranteed access through Rafah. The humanitarian dividend must be immediate and visible, or the plan will lose legitimacy.

For families who have buried relatives and queued up for water, sequencing only matters if power returns, clinics are restocked, rubble is cleared and classrooms reopen. That depends on Palestinian buy-in, not as spectators but as co-designers such as doctors, teachers, engineers, civil defence volunteers and others who rebuild daily life.

Acceptance will hinge on whether aid feels real, governance is credible and disarmament does not erase political voice. Consent is not symbolic but essential. Without it, no board, monitor or mandate will hold.

Besides, the many hard edges remain sharp. For Hamas and smaller factions, disarmament is existential, not technical. A Trump-led board and an ISF without a clear legal mandate risk thin legitimacy, ambiguous rules of engagement and contested authority. The ISF could well become a peacekeeper with no peace to keep.

Inside Israel, coalition arithmetic looms large. Netanyahu’s far-right partners reject PA engagement, oppose any pathway to statehood and demand a permanent IDF presence. That stance, combined with Netanyahu’s hints at an indefinite security perimeter while ruling out both Hamas and the PA in governance, creates ambiguity that could fracture his coalition or sink the plan.

For India, this is not a spectator sport. Its vantage lies at the intersection of principle and prudence. On principle, New Delhi backs a negotiated two-state solution and sustained humanitarian relief. On prudence, it balances a growing partnership with Israel with expanding ties with Arab states.

That is why Prime Minister Modi swiftly welcomed the plan as a ‘viable pathway to long-term peace.’ This stance has domestic support and reflects both diplomatic calculation and regional balance. The alignment is not accidental. India has steadily increased aid to Palestinians, nearly $80 million in the past decade, and consistently voiced support for Palestinian statehood at the UN, even when abstaining on contentious resolutions.

There is also a hard-nosed economic stake. Each month of war keeps Red Sea insurance high, shipping costs volatile and inflation pressures alive. India’s Navy has already surged to secure sea lanes. Ending the conflict would lower maritime risk, stabilise prices, protect the arteries of India’s trade and breathe life into projects like the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), which depend on regional peace and predictable politics. Quiet seas, not loud statements, move markets.

If Pakistan secures a role in the Gaza plan with US backing, the impact on India will be political, not military. Islamabad will surely push Kashmir analogies. Delhi’s answer must be to keep Gaza de-hyphenated, Kashmir decoupled and the Gulf and Europe on side. Even if it materialises, Pakistan’s role will remain that of a follower, not a fulcrum.

India should focus on three metrics. First, Hamas’s written reply via Qatar. The plan lives or dies there. Second, Israel’s coalition arithmetic. Can Opposition parties provide cover if the far right bolts from Netanyahu’s coalition or does it mean early elections? Third, whether monitors and the ISF secure a legally anchored mandate. Without that, compliance will be challenging.

This is not Oslo 2.0. It is ceasefire as contract, sequenced, time-stamped, and transactional. It offers direction, not design. The upside is immediate: hostages home, guns silent, humanitarian lifelines restored. The downside is familiar: uncompromising militants, a fractured Israeli ruling coalition, and an international force without authority. The opening chorus is broad, but the structural cracks run deep. India is right to welcome the opening, but must keep its eyes on the fine print. Blueprints win peace, bullet points do not.

Syed Akbaruddin is India’s former permanent representative to the UN.