There is one major drawback to US President Donald Trump's latest effort to end the Gaza conflict: Palestinian leaders and some Gulf Arab states -- in particular Qatar (such as here, here, here, here and here) -- have absolutely no intention of agreeing to, or implementing, a lasting peace deal with Israel.
For nearly eight decades, Palestinian leaders have consistently rejected offers to end hostilities with Israel.
While Mahmoud Abbas, the so-called "moderate" leader of the Palestinian Authority, has said he is willing to work with the Trump administration on a peace plan for Gaza, the chances of any negotiations with the Palestinians reaching a successful conclusion are remote if their track record is anything to go by.
In his speech to the UN General Assembly in New York, Trump renewed his calls for an end to the violence, insisting that "we have to stop the war in Gaza immediately." At the same time, he revealed that his administration remained "deeply engaged" in efforts to secure a ceasefire.
As if to emphasise the point, details of the Trump administration's latest 21-point plan for ending the Gaza conflict have been published by the Times of Israel. It reports that the main objective is for Palestinians to remain in Gaza while efforts are undertaken for the creation of a pathway to a future Palestinian state.
The document, which was reportedly shared by the US with a handful of Arab and Muslim countries earlier this week on the sidelines of the UN summit, also contains clauses that have been the basis of previous ceasefire attempts by the Trump administration, such as linking the ceasefire to the release of all Israeli hostages held in Gaza and to Hamas's removal from power.
The suggestion, though, that the estimated two million Palestinians currently occupying the Gaza Strip should remain there would mark a significant shift in White House policy. Trump has previously encouraged the notion of relocating Gaza's entire population.
The proposals outlined in the document, which have been drawn up under the auspices of Trump's Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, certainly indicate a marked shift in Trump's position on the issue, raising fears that the US leader is moving in a different direction to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who remains committed to achieving the complete destruction of Hamas to prevent further attacks on Israel in the future.
Signs of deepening tensions between Trump and Netanyahu on the Gaza issue also emerged during the US summit, following reports that the US leader personally promised Arab and Muslim leaders that he would not allow Israel to annex the West Bank, a move that ostensibly would be an obstacle to advancing the Abraham Accords.
Of course, other excuses might surface, if "needed."
Trump's approach is certainly at odds with the position of the Israeli prime minister, who used his own speech to the UN to insist that Israel must "finish the job" in Gaza, a request also made by Trump. Netanyahu denounced moves by a number of countries, including the UK, France, Canada and Australia, to recognise a Palestinian state, telling them, "You didn't do something right. You did something wrong, horribly wrong."
Despite Netanyahu's determination to maintain Israel's military offensive against Hamas, Trump continues to insist that the negotiations to end the conflict have been intense and productive, posting on Truth Social that, "Intense negotiations have been going on for four days, and will continue for as long as necessary in order to get a Successfully Completed Agreement."
The main stumbling block to Trump's repeated efforts to end the conflict in Gaza, though, remains the fact that Palestinian leaders, and Qatar, have no genuine interest in negotiating a permanent peace deal with Israel. It is an attitude that has underpinned their attitude to all previous diplomatic efforts to achieve peace.
While both Trump and Netanyahu are insistent that Hamas's leadership can play no role in future negotiations on resolving the Gaza conflict, it is equally clear that the so-called moderate Palestinian politicians, such as Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority, have no genuine interest in agreeing to any kind of lasting settlement with Israel.
Qatar, as well as other Gulf States, which reportedly are expected to pay for the reconstruction of Gaza, will doubtless demand a role in its future governance. Such a concession, even if Israel were to monitor security, would be a monumental recipe for disaster.
Qatar has a history of funding effectively all radical Islamic terrorist groups -- from ISIS to Al-Qaeda to Hamas to the Taliban --and appears solidly committed to furthering the policies of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Even if Hamas is not included in a future Gaza, there is always room theoretically for a clone of Hamas with a different name. As Egypt and Islamist groups continue smuggling weapons into the "new" Gaza, there will undoubtedly be endless friction with Israel, not to mention the Palestinians whom the current negotiators insist stay in place. With sufficient incentives, many countries might be glad to spare them years of living in rubble.
The best idea, and in the long run far less expensive militarily and diplomatically, would be if Trump would return to his original idea of Gaza as a kind of US-Israeli "Riviera" protectorate, preferably with a US military base. Then one would not even need any further Abraham Accords: a US military presence should be sufficient to deter aggression and keep peace -- as it has done so successfully in Qatar.
Not all Arab states might like this approach. It certainly would deprive them of the opportunity, should the winds change, of trying again to destroy Israel.
In addition, the rejectionism of successive generations of Palestinian leaders is well-documented, dating back to when the Nazi-collaborating Palestinian leader, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin Husseini, rejected the UN's 1947 partition plan that included a two-state solution.
Palestinian leaders have maintained this rejectionist attitude ever since. Yasser Arafat, the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, summarily rejected far-reaching concessions offered by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at the Camp David summit organised by US President Bill Clinton in 2000, without even bothering to offer a counterproposal. Abbas proved to be equally intransigent when then Israeli premier Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinians even greater sweeping concessions.
Nor is there any likelihood that Abbas and other members of the Palestinian leadership will be prepared actually to engage positively, apart from elusive promises, with the Trump administration's latest peace proposals.
Abbas's refusal to engage with Trump during the latter's first term was the main reason that the Palestinians were overlooked during the groundbreaking negotiations that resulted in the Abraham Accords in 2020, which resulted in a number of Arab states normalising relations with Israel.
So even if, as Trump insists, Hamas is excluded from any future negotiations on the future of Gaza and the Palestinians, the likelihood of his administration having any positive talks with so-called "moderate" Palestinian leaders, such as Abbas -- or any prospects of a true, long-term peace if Arab countries are allowed to run Gaza -- sadly, the end to decades of hostility will continue to be non-existent.
Con Coughlin is the Telegraph's Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
