US President Donald Trump shared on Truth Social a Financial Times opinion column by former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in which she argues in support of his 20-point Gaza peace plan.
In her June column, Clinton writes that governments should not reject the plan simply because it is imperfect, arguing that there is currently no alternative framework with comparable diplomatic leverage, political engagement, and potential resources.
“The 20-point plan is not the one many of us would have drafted," Clinton writes, while maintaining that it remains the only framework capable of moving the parties toward implementation.
Clinton argues that failing to engage with the plan could leave Hamas retaining political and practical influence in Gaza while reconstruction remains stalled and civilians continue to suffer. She says that demilitarization and a transition away from Hamas rule are necessary for meaningful reconstruction and for the possibility of a future led by Palestinians.
She also acknowledges concerns over the plan and the Board of Peace, including doubts about Palestinian governance and representation and skepticism toward an American-led initiative closely associated with Trump.
“I understand that scepticism, and share some of it," Clinton writes. “Yet if even I, an implacable opponent of President Trump, can accept that this is the best option in a terrible situation, then surely others can too?"
Clinton further argues that engagement with the plan should involve pressure on all sides, including Israel, Arab states and Europe. She says the international community should seek to shape the framework rather than stand aside.
“The choice for governments is not whether this process is ideal," she concludes. “It is whether they are prepared to help shape an imperfect framework from within or stand aside while more destructive actors shape what comes next."
An opinion column published in the Financial Times by Inder Sud, who served as Director of Middle East operations at the World Bank from 1995 to 2001, challenges Clinton's assessment.
Sud writes that Clinton is “dead wrong" in describing Trump's Gaza plan as the best and only possible path to peace, pointing to development initiatives proposed for the Palestinians following the 1993 Oslo Accords.
Sud recalls that, during his tenure overseeing the World Bank's Middle East operations, the organization was tasked with promoting development in the Palestinian territories, particularly Gaza. Among the proposals were an access-controlled highway connecting Gaza and Judea and Samaria, jointly operated industrial estates, housing for returning Palestinians and agricultural greenhouses.
According to Sud, Palestinian officials publicly welcomed such initiatives but privately expressed skepticism, viewing development proposals as a means of postponing the central questions of Palestinian autonomy and statehood.
“Most such projects from that era today lie in ruins," Sud writes.
He argues that the same concerns cast doubt on the prospects for Trump's Board of Peace, concluding that Palestinian skepticism that emerged in the 1990s “has, if anything, deepened."