Beth K. Doherty, professor of international relations and political science at Beloit College, outlined the humanitarian and political dimensions of the Gaza war and a recently announced U.S.-backed peace proposal during a public lecture co-hosted by Mead Public Library and the Sheboygan branch of the American Association of University Women.

Doherty told the audience that Gaza faces a humanitarian catastrophe, citing United Nations assessments of widespread displacement, heavy damage to housing and infrastructure and severe food insecurity. She said international pressure, declining Israeli international standing and domestic political stresses in Israel combined with diplomatic maneuvers to produce the new peace initiative that she described as likely to win a temporary ceasefire and hostage releases but not a durable end to the conflict.

“‘The one thing everybody has kind of grabbed onto’ with this plan is the idea that within three days of the agreement hostages would be released,” Doherty said, adding that the timeline is unrealistic and the plan contains few operational details. She warned the proposal leaves open who would carry out key tasks such as disarmament and transitional governance.

Doherty summarized four trends she said pushed Israeli leaders and outside mediators toward the plan: the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza; growing international criticism of Israel’s conduct of the war; a measurable erosion in Israel’s international standing (including among some U.S. constituencies); and intense domestic political pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tied to the war’s conduct and the fate of hostages. She discussed polling data she cited indicating that many Israelis prioritize bringing hostages home over toppling Hamas.

She reviewed elements of the plan as presented publicly: immediate or rapid hostage returns, Palestinian prisoners released by Israel after hostage releases, a disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) component for some Hamas members, immediate and unfettered humanitarian aid, and a temporary, technocratic transitional governing body for Gaza. Doherty said the plan’s language on “deradicalization,” the makeup and authority of a transitional governing committee and the entity that would disarm militants are vague or absent.

Doherty warned that technical programs such as DDR and governance reforms require extensive design and oversight by experienced multilateral teams and spelled out several practical gaps in the plan: who would collect and store weapons, how amnesty or reintegration would be verified, what benchmarks Palestinian institutions would need to meet, and whether Palestinians would have a substantive role in post-conflict governance.

She also reviewed humanitarian figures and damage assessments she cited from U.N. agencies and other international organizations: a Gaza population she said is roughly 2.2 million, extremely high displacement with most residents moved multiple times, tens of thousands of deaths and injuries, severe damage to housing and schools (she cited U.N. building tallies and damage-mapping), and agricultural loss that leaves only a small fraction of land usable for food production. Doherty described reports that supply distributions have been looted and that many convoys have not reached intended recipients.

During a question-and-answer period, Doherty discussed the domestic political constraints facing Israeli leaders, the role of U.S. actors in brokering talks, and the limits of state recognition of Palestine as primarily a diplomatic signal rather than an immediate change to conditions on the ground. She said the proposal’s strongest near-term prospect is a hostage exchange and a temporary ceasefire, but she expressed “grave reservations” that the plan as described would produce a lasting peace or meaningful Palestinian self-determination without significant redesign and Palestinian input.

Doherty’s analysis repeatedly returned to the humanitarian emergency and to what she described as operational and political shortcomings in the plan: absent timelines, unclear implementing authorities, and limited mechanisms for Palestinian participation. She closed by urging that any pathway to an enduring resolution include clear roles for Palestinians and robust, multilateral technical capacity for disarmament and reconstruction.