Genocide Denial Within Trump's 20-Point Plan
This non-partisan analysis examines each point of Donald Trump's "20 Point Plan" using the Stages of Genocide Denial by Michael Vera. Genocide denial is framed here as a process contributing to cumulative radicalization that enables or perpetuates genocide, rather than merely occurring post-event. For each point, I identify applicable stages based on explicit content, implications (e.g., framing that minimizes or redirects accountability), and exclusions (e.g., omissions that avoid acknowledging certain realities, such as Israeli actions in Gaza). Stages are listed only where they fit, with brief explanations tied to the point's language or absences.
Point 1: "Gaza will be a deradicalised terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbours".
- Stage 1: Question the Scale – Implied by focusing solely on Gaza's "radicalization" and threats, which minimizes the scale of destruction in Gaza by excluding mention of Israeli military actions that have caused widespread devastation.
- Stage 2: Challenge the Intent – The framing of Gaza as needing "deradicalization" challenges any intent of genocide by Israel, implying that actions are defensive against "terror" rather than deliberate targeting of civilians.
- Stage 3: Blame the Victims – Labels Gazans implicitly as "radical terrorists" (via the need for deradicalization), blaming them for threats while excluding IDF actions like bombings and infrastructure destruction, which are portrayed as necessary for "peace."
- Stage 4: Highlight Counter-Violence – Emphasizes Gaza's potential "threat" to neighbors, highlighting Palestinian actions as the core issue while omitting Israeli violence, creating a one-sided narrative of retaliation.
- Stage 5: Assert Political Motivations – Exclusion of Israeli radicalism (e.g., IDF as "terrorists") implies accusations against Israel are politically motivated, redirecting focus to Palestinian "terror."
- Stage 8: Draw False Comparisons – Implicitly compares Gaza to a "terror zone" needing cleansing, downplaying unique aspects of the conflict by excluding parallels to Israeli occupation since 1967.
- Stage 10: Rewrite History – Rewrites Gaza's context by excluding historical Israeli actions (e.g., counterterrorism since 1967), presenting deradicalization as a neutral solution.
- Stage 11: Claim Religious Oppression – Subtly implied by framing Palestinian resistance as "radical terror," which can suggest allegations against Israel stem from anti-Semitic or religious bias, though not explicit.
Point 2: "Gaza will be redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza, who have suffered more than enough."
- Stage 1: Question the Scale – Acknowledges suffering but questions its scale by framing it vaguely ("more than enough") without quantifying or attributing it to Israeli actions, minimizing the extent of destruction.
- Stage 2: Challenge the Intent – Presents redevelopment as benevolent, challenging any genocidal intent by implying suffering is incidental rather than deliberate.
- Stage 3: Blame the Victims – Implies Gazans' suffering stems from their own situation (e.g., internal "terror"), excluding external causes like Israeli blockades or bombings.
- Stage 4: Highlight Counter-Violence – Exclusion of Israeli violence creates a narrative where Palestinian suffering is self-inflicted or due to "two-sided" conflict, without balance.
- Stage 7: Call for ‘More Research’ – Not directly, but the vague promise of redevelopment delays acknowledgment by shifting to future planning.
- Stage 10: Rewrite History – Rewrites suffering as a neutral endpoint for redevelopment, excluding historical context of occupation and destruction.
Point 3: "If both sides agree to this proposal, the war will immediately end. Israeli forces will withdraw to the agreed-upon line to prepare for a hostage release. During this time, all military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment, will be suspended, and battle lines will remain frozen until conditions are met for the complete staged withdrawal."
- Stage 2: Challenge the Intent – Frames Israeli actions (bombardment, etc.) as temporary and conditional, challenging intent by portraying them as defensive measures in a mutual agreement.
- Stage 4: Highlight Counter-Violence – Emphasizes "both sides" and hostages, highlighting Palestinian actions while downplaying ongoing Israeli operations as mere "suspensions."
- Stage 5: Assert Political Motivations – Implies the war's continuation is due to lack of agreement, suggesting Palestinian refusal is politically motivated.
- Stage 8: Draw False Comparisons – Compares the conflict to a negotiable "war" with equal sides, downplaying asymmetry and genocidal elements.
- Stage 10: Rewrite History – Excludes the history of Israeli incursions, rewriting the conflict as resolvable through mutual freeze, ignoring cumulative radicalization.
Point 4: "Within 72 hours of Israel publicly accepting this agreement, all hostages, alive and deceased, will be returned."
- Stage 3: Blame the Victims – Focuses on Palestinian responsibility for hostages, blaming them while excluding Israeli detentions or killings.
- Stage 4: Highlight Counter-Violence – Highlights hostage-taking as key violence, creating a narrative of Palestinian aggression justifying response.
- Stage 5: Assert Political Motivations – Implies delays in release are Palestinian political tactics, without addressing Israeli side.
- Stage 9: Undermine Witnesses and Survivors – Indirectly undermines Palestinian narratives by prioritizing hostage return without context of broader suffering.
Point 5: "Once all hostages are released, Israel will release 250 life-sentence prisoners, plus 1,700 Gazans who were detained after October 7th 2023, including all women and children detained in that context. For every Israeli hostage whose remains are released, Israel will release the remains of 15 deceased Gazans."
- Stage 1: Question the Scale – Quantifies releases unevenly (e.g., 15:1 for remains), questioning the scale of Palestinian losses by making them transactional.
- Stage 3: Blame the Victims – Frames Palestinian detainees as "prisoners" implying guilt, blaming them while excluding wrongful detentions.
- Stage 4: Highlight Counter-Violence – Ties releases to October 7, highlighting Palestinian actions as the trigger.
- Stage 8: Draw False Comparisons – Creates a false equivalence between hostages and detainees, downplaying differences in context and scale.
Point 6: "Once all hostages are returned, Hamas members who commit to peaceful co-existence and to decommission their weapons will be given amnesty. Members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries."
- Stage 2: Challenge the Intent – Challenges Palestinian intent by requiring decommissioning, implying their violence is the core issue, not Israeli actions.
- Stage 3: Blame the Victims – Blames Hamas members for needing amnesty, excluding Israeli forces' accountability.
- Stage 6: Dispute Historical Consensus – Disputes consensus on resistance by framing Hamas solely as needing reform, ignoring occupation history.
- Stage 10: Rewrite History – Rewrites Hamas' role by offering exile or amnesty, excluding broader historical grievances.
Point 7: "Upon acceptance of this agreement, full aid will be immediately sent into the Gaza Strip. At a minimum, aid quantities will be consistent with what was included in the January 19, 2025, agreement regarding humanitarian aid, including rehabilitation of infrastructure (water, electricity, sewage), rehabilitation of hospitals and bakeries, and entry of necessary equipment to remove rubble and open roads."
- Stage 1: Question the Scale – Ties aid to a prior agreement, potentially minimizing current crisis scale by referencing limited past standards.
- Stage 2: Challenge the Intent – Presents aid as conditional benevolence, challenging any intent of withholding as genocidal.
- Stage 7: Call for ‘More Research’ – Delays full acknowledgment by linking to future rehabilitation without immediate assessment.
- Stage 10: Rewrite History – Excludes how infrastructure was destroyed (e.g., by IDF), rewriting it as a neutral need for repair.
Point 8: "Entry of distribution and aid in the Gaza Strip will proceed without interference from the two parties through the United Nations and its agencies, and the Red Crescent, in addition to other international institutions not associated in any manner with either party. Opening the Rafah crossing in both directions will be subject to the same mechanism implemented under the January 19, 2025, agreement."
- Stage 4: Highlight Counter-Violence – Implies past interference by "two parties," but excludes specifics of Israeli blockades, balancing blame.
- Stage 5: Assert Political Motivations – Frames interference as mutual, suggesting political motivations on both sides.
- Stage 8: Draw False Comparisons – Compares parties equally in aid interference, downplaying Israeli control over borders.
- Stage 10: Rewrite History – References past agreement to rewrite aid issues as resolved mechanisms, excluding long-term blockade history.
Point 9: "Gaza will be governed under the temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, responsible for delivering the day-to-day running of public services and municipalities for the people in Gaza. This committee will be made up of qualified Palestinians and international experts, with oversight and supervision by a new international transitional body, the “Board of Peace,” which will be headed and chaired by President Donald J Trump, with other members and heads of State to be announced, including Former Prime Minister Tony Blair. This body will set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza until such time as the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform program, as outlined in various proposals, including President Trump’s peace plan in 2020 and the Saudi-French proposal, and can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza. This body will call on best international standards to create modern and efficient governance that serves the people of Gaza and is conducive to attracting investment."
- Stage 2: Challenge the Intent – Frames governance as neutral and beneficial, challenging any external intent to control or destroy.
- Stage 5: Assert Political Motivations – References past plans (e.g., Trump's 2020), implying opposition is politically motivated.
- Stage 6: Dispute Historical Consensus – Disputes Palestinian self-governance history by requiring "reform" under international oversight, citing selective proposals.
- Stage 7: Call for ‘More Research’ – Delays PA control until "reform" is complete, calling for ongoing processes.
- Stage 10: Rewrite History – Rewrites Gaza's governance as needing external intervention, excluding occupation's role in instability.
Point 10: "A Trump economic development plan to rebuild and energise Gaza will be created by convening a panel of experts who have helped birth some of the thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East. Many thoughtful investment proposals and exciting development ideas have been crafted by well-meaning international groups, and will be considered to synthesise the security and governance frameworks to attract and facilitate these investments that will create jobs, opportunity, and hope for future Gaza."
- Stage 1: Question the Scale – Focuses on future prosperity, minimizing current destruction's scale by shifting to "miracle" redevelopment.
- Stage 8: Draw False Comparisons – Compares Gaza to "thriving modern miracle cities," downplaying unique genocidal context.
- Stage 10: Rewrite History – Rewrites Gaza as a blank slate for investment, excluding how destruction occurred.
Point 11: "A special economic zone will be established, with preferred tariff and access rates to be negotiated with participating countries."
- Stage 2: Challenge the Intent – Presents economic incentives as positive, challenging any destructive intent.
- Stage 8: Draw False Comparisons – Implies Gaza can become like other economic zones, downplaying conflict's gravity.
- Stage 10: Rewrite History – Excludes economic blockade history, rewriting as opportunity.
Point 12: "No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return. We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza."
- Stage 1: Question the Scale – Minimizes displacement scale by claiming no force, excluding historical forced evictions.
- Stage 3: Blame the Victims – Encourages staying for "better Gaza," implying those who leave are at fault for not participating.
- Stage 10: Rewrite History – Rewrites displacement as voluntary, excluding Nakba or ongoing evictions.
Point 13: "Hamas and other factions agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form. All military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt. There will be a process of demilitarisation of Gaza under the supervision of independent monitors, which will include placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning, and supported by an internationally funded buy-back and reintegration program all verified by the independent monitors. New Gaza will be fully committed to building a prosperous economy and to peaceful coexistence with their neighbours."
- Stage 2: Challenge the Intent – Requires Palestinian demilitarization, challenging their intent as aggressive while excluding Israeli militarism.
- Stage 3: Blame the Victims – Blames "Hamas and factions" for needing exclusion and destruction of infrastructure.
- Stage 4: Highlight Counter-Violence – Focuses on Palestinian "terror infrastructure," highlighting their violence.
- Stage 10: Rewrite History – Rewrites Gaza as "New Gaza" post-demilitarization, excluding resistance context.
Point 14: "A guarantee will be provided by regional partners to ensure that Hamas, and the factions, comply with their obligations and that New Gaza poses no threat to its neighbours or its people."
- Stage 3: Blame the Victims – Places compliance burden on Palestinians, blaming them for potential threats.
- Stage 4: Highlight Counter-Violence – Emphasizes no threat from Gaza, highlighting Palestinian side.
- Stage 5: Assert Political Motivations – Implies regional guarantees counter Palestinian political unreliability.
Point 15: "The United States will work with Arab and international partners to develop a temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF) to immediately deploy in Gaza. The ISF will train and provide support to vetted Palestinian police forces in Gaza, and will consult with Jordan and Egypt who have extensive experience in this field. This force will be the long-term internal security solution. The ISF will work with Israel and Egypt to help secure border areas, along with newly trained Palestinian police forces. It is critical to prevent munitions from entering Gaza and to facilitate the rapid and secure flow of goods to rebuild and revitalise Gaza. A deconfliction mechanism will be agreed upon by the parties."
- Stage 2: Challenge the Intent – Frames ISF as stabilizing, challenging any external control as genocidal.
- Stage 4: Highlight Counter-Violence – Focuses on preventing munitions into Gaza, highlighting Palestinian threats.
- Stage 6: Dispute Historical Consensus – Disputes self-determination by imposing external forces, citing "experience" selectively.
- Stage 10: Rewrite History – Rewrites security as international-led, excluding occupation's role.
Point 16: "Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza. As the ISF establishes control and stability, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) will withdraw based on standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarisation that will be agreed upon between the IDF, ISF, the guarantors, and the United States, with the objective of a secure Gaza that no longer poses a threat to Israel, Egypt, or its citizens. Practically, the IDF will progressively hand over the Gaza territory it occupies to the ISF, according to an agreement they will make with the transitional authority, until they are withdrawn completely from Gaza, save for a security perimeter presence that will remain until Gaza is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat."
- Stage 1: Question the Scale – Minimizes occupation by promising withdrawal, questioning its current scale.
- Stage 2: Challenge the Intent – Denies occupation/annexation intent, framing presence as temporary security.
- Stage 4: Highlight Counter-Violence – Ties withdrawal to no "resurgent terror," highlighting Palestinian threats.
- Stage 10: Rewrite History – Rewrites occupation as phased handover, excluding long-term control.
Point 17: "In the event Hamas delays or rejects this proposal, the above, including the scaled-up aid operation, will proceed in the terror-free areas handed over from the IDF to the ISF."
- Stage 3: Blame the Victims – Blames Hamas for delays, justifying continuation in "terror-free" areas.
- Stage 5: Assert Political Motivations – Implies rejection is politically motivated, allowing partial implementation.
- Stage 10: Rewrite History – Divides Gaza into "terror-free" zones, rewriting areas as separable from conflict history.
Point 18: "An interfaith dialogue process will be established based on the values of tolerance and peaceful co-existence to try and change mindsets and narratives of Palestinians and Israelis by emphasising the benefits that can be derived from peace."
- Stage 2: Challenge the Intent – Frames dialogue as mindset change, challenging deep-seated intents on both sides equally.
- Stage 8: Draw False Comparisons – Equates Palestinian and Israeli narratives, downplaying asymmetry.
- Stage 11: Claim Religious Oppression – Uses "interfaith" to suggest allegations stem from religious divides, implying oppression claims against deniers.
Point 19: "While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognise as the aspiration of the Palestinian people."
- Stage 5: Assert Political Motivations – Conditions statehood on "faithful" reform, implying past failures are politically motivated.
- Stage 6: Dispute Historical Consensus – Disputes consensus on self-determination by requiring conditions.
- Stage 7: Call for ‘More Research’ – Delays statehood until "conditions" are met, calling for ongoing processes.
- Stage 10: Rewrite History – Rewrites path to statehood as conditional on redevelopment, excluding historical denials.
Point 20: "The United States will establish a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous co-existence."
- Stage 2: Challenge the Intent – Frames dialogue as for co-existence, challenging any destructive intent.
- Stage 5: Assert Political Motivations – Implies lack of agreement is mutual politics.
- Stage 8: Draw False Comparisons – Presents as equal dialogue, downplaying power imbalances.
- Stage 10: Rewrite History – Rewrites future as "political horizon," excluding past failed dialogues due to imbalances.