A new peace initiative aimed at ending the conflict in Gaza was announced this week by U.S. President Donald Trump and his Board of Peace, outlining a phased roadmap for disarming Hamas and other militant factions in the territory, alongside a gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces. The plan also proposes transferring administrative control to a newly formed Palestinian body known as the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), which would oversee governance, reconstruction, and public services.
The agreement, which Trump described as "historic," sets out a process in which Hamas would hand over its weapons and military infrastructure to the NCAG under international supervision. This includes dismantling underground tunnels and arms production facilities. Following verified disarmament in specific areas, Israel would begin withdrawing its troops in phases. The parties have a 14-day period to finalize details and may extend this timeframe as necessary.
However, significant skepticism remains regarding the plan’s feasibility. Hamas officials stressed that they would not commence disarmament unless Israel fully commits to withdrawing its forces and halts ongoing attacks on Gaza, which have continued despite a cease-fire established in October 2025. Ghazi Hamad, a Hamas negotiator, emphasized that Israel must fulfill its obligations before any weapons turnover occurs, highlighting the group’s insistence on reciprocity.
Israeli officials have yet to publicly endorse the initiative. Some have expressed deep doubts about Hamas’s willingness to relinquish arms or abandon its stated objective of opposing the Israeli state, citing the group’s founding charter and a history of breaking cease-fire agreements. A senior Israeli source questioned whether Hamas would genuinely abandon its goal of destroying Israel. Hard-line Israeli ministers, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, rejected the plan as unacceptable, arguing that targeted killings of militants must continue.
Security analysts warn that replacing Hamas politically could be as challenging as dismantling its military capabilities. They argue that any transitional governing body must be free of Hamas influence and undergo thorough vetting to avoid reinstating militant control under a different guise. Meanwhile, others note that Hamas’s acceptance of the roadmap may partly be a strategic move to hold Israel accountable for the plan’s implementation, shifting the burden of proof to the Israeli government.
The plan’s success is further complicated by external factors, including ongoing Iranian support for Hamas and internal divisions within both Israeli and Palestinian politics. With Israeli national elections approaching in October and Israel’s stated opposition to establishing a Palestinian state, analysts caution that political constraints may hinder progress.
Observers suggest that without mutual trust and clear, verifiable steps, the roadmap could quickly unravel, potentially leading to renewed hostilities. Both sides appear poised to await concrete actions from the other before fully committing to the agreement, raising concerns that the initiative may revert to a cycle of blame and stalled implementation rather than lasting peace.