Hamas has expressed agreement to disarm as outlined in a recent 15-point proposal developed by President Trump's Board of Peace, but doubts remain about the plan’s viability and enforcement. While the commitment marks a potential step toward stability in Gaza, various unresolved issues raise questions about its implementation and the likelihood of lasting peace.

A primary concern centers on verification: determining when and whether Hamas, along with allied armed groups, has genuinely ceased all military activities. Critics highlight the absence of clear criteria or mechanisms for assessing compliance, noting that some factions may continue attacks against Israeli forces or Gaza residents who oppose them. An International Verification Committee (IVC) is suggested as a monitoring body, but details about its composition, deployment, and authority remain unclear. Furthermore, the process for adjudicating disputes over adherence to the ceasefire is not defined.

The plan also references an International Stabilization Force intended to support security efforts, though this contingent is projected to be limited in size. While the peace initiative calls for 5,000 personnel, only a fraction have been pledged by participating countries to date, raising concerns about the force’s capacity to enforce terms effectively.

Another point of ambiguity involves the designation of "Palestinian law," frequently cited in the agreement. Given the absence of a sovereign Palestinian state, it is uncertain whether these laws refer to those established by the Palestinian Authority, statutes imposed by Hamas in Gaza, or other legal frameworks. Questions linger about which judicial bodies would interpret such laws and how uniform enforcement would be achieved.

The transition of administrative functions from Hamas to a new body—the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza—also prompts skepticism. The vetting process for civil servants drawn from various factions, the reliability of current police forces, and their integration into the new governance structure are all unresolved matters. In particular, the issue of weapons custody remains problematic. It is unclear who would take control of arms surrendered by Hamas and whether certain “personal arms” might be legally retained under undefined Palestinian laws—potentially including assault rifles such as AK-47s.

Further complicating implementation is the lack of comprehensive oversight of Hamas’s military infrastructure. There is no publicly available inventory of weapons stockpiles, tunnels, or militant personnel spread across Gaza, making verification and disarmament difficult to enforce.

Since the initial 20-point peace plan was signed on October 20, 2025, limited progress has been observed on the ground. Hamas continues to assert its authority over Gaza without renouncing armed resistance or its stated opposition to Israel. Observers suggest the current 15-point plan lacks the mechanisms needed to alter this dynamic substantively. As a result, the Israel Defense Forces remain the principal force capable of constraining militant activity in the region.

Despite these challenges, President Trump has maintained a strong focus on diplomatic efforts toward a solution and continues to advocate for tangible outcomes. The months ahead will test whether these agreements can translate into meaningful change amid ongoing political and security complexities.