Editor's note: Adriel Kasonta, a special commentator for CGTN, is a London-based foreign affairs analyst and commentator. He is the founder of AK Consultancy and former chairman of the International Affairs Committee at Bow Group, the oldest conservative think tank in the UK. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Israel's October 4 declaration that it is ready to "immediately implement" the first phase of U.S. President Donald Trump's 20-point Gaza peace plan came with a touch of theatre and more than a whiff of deja vu. The announcement followed Hamas's official response, but in truth, this plan was never about peacemaking. It was about optics, leverage, and – most of all – Israel's attempt to dress its war aims in diplomatic garb.

The irony is that the Trump plan unveiled last week was not the same blueprint hammered out with Arab leaders in private. As Pakistan's Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, pointedly noted, the document Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held aloft at the White House on September 29 had been edited – quite heavily – before going public. The Times of Israel even praised Netanyahu for securing the "key edits" before sharing the podium with Trump. No wonder then that the East Room looked oddly barren of Arab leaders. A Saudi, Emirati, Egyptian, or Qatari statesman flanking the pair would have lent credibility to the event. Their absence spoke volumes: they had signed on to one plan, only to see another paraded under klieg lights.

To call this a peace plan is to indulge in euphemism. It is, in reality, a hostage deal dressed up in the language of reconciliation. The text demands that Hamas disarm, relinquish all governing authority, and accept Israel's sweeping conditions – without offering Gaza people a single enforceable right or a pathway to sovereignty. In effect, it imposes surrender under the guise of "peace."

Strip away the spin, and the Trump-Bibi proposal looks less like conflict resolution than conflict management on Israel's terms. Its purpose is clear: to help Israel meet its war objectives without the reputational cost of prolonged bombardment. As any serious observer knows, a deal that rewards the occupier and humiliates the occupied is not peace – it is coercion.

Is this assessment too harsh? Let's examine the record. Trump's plan conspicuously omitted any mention of ending Israel's military occupation or recognizing Palestinians' right to self-determination. Yet these issues lie at the very heart of an 80-year conflict. Without addressing them, the plan is no more than a band-aid over a bullet wound.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian toll continues. UNICEF has estimated that since the war began two years ago, an average of 28 children have been killed in Gaza daily. No amount of White House rhetoric can camouflage this grim arithmetic.

Even Netanyahu has made no secret of his desire to keep the option of renewed attacks on Gaza wide open. Hours before Trump's announcement, Israel's former ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, told CNN the plan was not about creating a Palestinian state but merely a "pathway" to discuss one. Trump himself clarified: Netanyahu had been "very clear" about opposing such a state.

This is nothing new. Netanyahu has spent decades finding ways to avoid Palestinian sovereignty. In 2001, two years after leaving office, he bragged to settlers – unaware he was being filmed – that he had manipulated the Oslo Accords to block progress towards the 1967 borders. "I know what America is," he said with a smirk, "America is something you can move very easily if you move it in the right direction."

The strategy has been consistent: divide Palestinians, weaken their leadership, and keep the occupation permanent. As Ami Ayalon, the former head of Shin Bet, explained, Israel had even allowed Qatari cash to flow to Hamas before October 7 – strengthening the very group it now vows to eradicate. Divide and rule has been the name of the game.

The reality is stark. Israel's current government does not want a two-state solution; it wants indefinite control over Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem – territories the UN has long deemed illegally occupied. Recent Israeli media reports revealed Mossad was in talks with Somalia and Sudan about "resettling" Palestinians from Gaza. Such schemes do not signal peacemaking but demographic engineering.

Hamas's response to the Trump plan fell short of acceptance, predictably rejecting disarmament and exclusion from future governance. But Netanyahu seems to remain unfazed. He does not seek compromise; He seeks capitulation.

What makes this theatre particularly hollow is Trump's insistence on casting himself as a peacemaker, even a Nobel laureate-in-waiting. Yet unlike Ronald Reagan, who in 1982 pressured Israel's Menachem Begin to halt bombing in Lebanon, Trump has shown no appetite to challenge Netanyahu. Instead, he allows himself to be outplayed.

And therein lies the tragedy. America, with its unrivalled leverage, could secure a just settlement – one that reconciles Israel's right to exist with Palestinians' right to self-determination. That was, after all, the promise of the UN's 1947 partition plan. Anything less than a genuine two-state framework cannot be described as peace.

The October 4 announcement may have been framed as a breakthrough. But peel back the layers and it is another chapter in a long saga of missed opportunities. Until Washington finds the courage to stand up to Netanyahu's obstructionism, and until Palestinian rights are treated as non-negotiable rather than disposable, every "peace plan" will remain what this one is: a diplomatic fig leaf covering an occupation that dares not speak its name.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)