The discussion between the Director-General of the Board of Peace, Nickolay Mladenov, and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu regarding the road map for Gaza recalls the proverbial chicken-and-egg dilemma. Netanyahu insisted that withdrawal from Gaza could only occur after Hamas’s complete disarmament. Hamas, conversely, maintained that it would fully relinquish its weapons only if Israel withdrew from Gaza. The Israeli side refused to pull its military back beyond the Yellow Line without the completion of decommissioning. Deeper uncertainties persist.
The Board of Peace, established in January 2026, is mandated to oversee the administration of Gaza. Nearly three years after the genocidal war in Gaza, the Palestinian armed group has agreed to participate in the disarmament plan—albeit with conditions. The recent announcement by Trump could potentially represent a major breakthrough toward a peaceful future for Gaza, Israel, and the neighbourhood. However, past and present developments offer multiple clues about the path ahead.
This disarmament plan is rooted in the controversial Gaza peace blueprint, under which the Palestinian territory is supposed to remain in a state of ceasefire. Yet Israel, with the tacit support of the US, has killed more than 1,000 people since last October—despite the cessation of hostilities—as reported by The Telegraph on August 4, 2026. According to the Associated Press, during the talks, Mladenov urged Netanyahu to stop attacks on Gaza, but Israel steadfastly refused. Since October 7, 2023, Israel has reportedly killed approximately 73,000 Palestinians in Gaza.
Caolan Magee has reported that Hamas agreed to a deal aimed at ending the Israeli war in Gaza, including provisions to disarm and surrender its weapons in stages. However, it conditioned this on Israel’s complete military withdrawal. Israel has not agreed to this; therefore, Hamas insists it will not implement any part of the deal unless Israel fulfills its obligations. Hamas’s distrust is genuine, given Israel’s track record of betrayal. For instance, despite the US-brokered ceasefire that came into effect on October 10, 2025, Israel has killed at least 1,100 Palestinians, continued to restrict humanitarian aid from entering Gaza, killed children to wipe out future generations, and expanded the Yellow Line further into the Strip—all of which violated the pre-existing ceasefire arrangement outlined in an initial 20-point peace plan announced by Trump last year.
The outlines of the disarmament plan are as follows:
(a) A schedule for an inventory of Hamas’s weapons must be prepared within 14 days, with extensions permitted only if agreed upon by an international verification commission and all parties involved.
(b) A Palestinian National Committee will oversee and execute the inventory and storage process and will be the sole entity authorized to hold, store, or control weapons in Gaza, with participation from various Palestinian factions.
(c) No weapons will be transferred or handed over to Israel or any other non-Palestinian party.
(d) An international verification commission, an International Stabilization Force, and a new Palestinian Police Force will oversee disarmament as Israeli troops incrementally withdraw to designated lines in step with verification progress.
(e) The inventory and storage will initially target heavy weaponry, military production sites, weapons depots, and the extensive tunnel network.
(f) The process is contingent on several steps, including the entry of the National Committee and the deployment of the international force.
(g) Disarmament phases will be directly tied to Israel’s gradual withdrawal from areas it controls and to the broader implementation of the peace plan.
Trump is hopeful that the peace plan will be carried out in a structured manner. Once disarmament is completed, Israeli forces would withdraw, and the International Stabilization Force would work with the new Palestinian Police Force to assume responsibility for Gaza. Under this agreement, Gaza would finally be placed in the hands of a new Palestinian government that serves its people.
However, the Gaza Peace Plan raises more questions than it answers.
First, Israel’s attitude toward the plan is one of suspicion. This is evident from the statement of Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar, who wrote on X:
“As long as Hamas retains its weapons, any civilian government will of course operate as Hamas dictates.”
As reported by Time on July 27, 2026,
“A technocratic administration would be responsible for garbage collection and other municipal services, while Hamas would remain the dominant military force.”
This plan seems to favor Israel’s strategic goal of a Greater Israel. It sidelines Palestinian statehood in governance. It lacks credible enforcement mechanisms or long-term viability for an independent Palestine.
Second, the primary tiers of the oversight board and governance structures consist exclusively of foreign actors and technocrats rather than representatives of the Palestinian state, creating an external, hierarchical model. Why should Hamas’s disarmament be a condition precedent for the withdrawal of Israeli military forces? What guarantee exists that Israeli forces would withdraw after Hamas’s disarmament—especially given that “completion” would be a matter of interpretation?
Third, who will verify their disarmament, and what happens to the verified weapons?
Fourth, the entire arrangement appears designed to institutionalize a permanent political split between Gaza and the West Bank, undermining the aspirations for a unified Palestinian state.
Fifth, there is a persistent lack of trust, vague timelines, and weak accountability for violations, with outside monitors—whose credibility is again questionable—struggling to compel compliance from either Israel or Hamas.
Sixth, regarding reconstruction and aid guarantees, the plan remains uncertain. Critical humanitarian needs, financial contributions, and the actual mechanics of long-term rebuilding remain heavily biased, conditional, underfunded, or subject to the shifting political whims of Donald Trump and foreign stakeholders.
Seventh, while Hamas’s disarmament is prominent in the plan, how will the disarmament of other groups be carried out? Who will verify their disarmament? What guarantee exists that Israel might not refuse to leave Gaza on the pretext of incomplete disarmament by all unspecified groups?
Finally, the Trump-chaired Board of Peace, endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2803, risks repeating the mistakes of the 1993 Oslo Accords, which weakened Palestinian unity by formalizing a fragmented administrative structure in the West Bank and Gaza. That deepened political divisions rather than consolidating a unified Palestinian state. In Trump’s schemes, Gaza will in all probability be subjected to a layered external governance system created with minimal Palestinian input or control over outcomes. UNSCR 2803 is unlike any other Security Council resolution, as it leaves ultimate power in the hands of Trump, as lifelong chair of the Board of Peace, and his carefully chosen techno-capitalist members. Trump’s policies are like a derailed juggernaut, which must be stopped by Palestinian leaders, the Arabs, the Europeans, the PLO, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, and Jordan through hard-bargaining diplomacy. A “now or never” approach must be adopted to halt Netanyahu’s design for a Greater Israel.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect (North London News) editorial policy.
