Netanyahu yields to Trump’s will on the Gaza deal... but the path to implementation is fraught with obstacles

Alongside the oscillation between diplomatic and military strike strategies, Iran’s path, US President Donald Trump also found a moment of relief. He announced an agreement between the International Peace Council and Hamas, which stipulates the phased withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Gaza Strip, parallel to the completion of the disarmament of Palestinian factions, according to an analysis by Haaretz.

This formula emerged after weeks of negotiations in Cairo, led by the three mediating countries: Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey, which exerted significant pressure on Hamas’s leadership inside and outside the Strip.

The Israeli government, too, has an interest in this for various reasons. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to have been forced to accept the fait accompli, and this may have been a precondition for his recent visit to the United States. Shortly before his departure, the Security and Political Cabinet was compelled to approve the entry of technocratic government members and an international stabilization force into Gaza. From the Israeli perspective, there are loopholes in the agreement that could lead to its failure, yet Netanyahu cannot afford at this stage to risk angering Trump.

In principle, the Gaza agreement represents a step in the right direction, just as the Israeli-Lebanese agreement signed in late June did, although its future remains equally uncertain. This agreement, or a better version of it, could have been reached much earlier, but Netanyahu refrained from doing so for months. Initially, he rejected any role for the Palestinian Authority in Gaza, then avoided taking steps to implement the twenty-point plan presented by Trump last October. Meanwhile, Hamas itself did not work to implement it. To date, the main achievement of that plan has been the completion of prisoner exchange deals.

It appears that Hamas agreed to the plan primarily because it buys time. Living conditions in the Strip are extremely difficult, and the Israeli army controls about 60 percent of the territory, continuing to assassinate military wing leaders every few days.

The local leadership known within Gaza is virtually absent, and the center of gravity has shifted to the external leadership, headed by the new leader Khalil al-Hayya. The agreement would ease direct military pressure on Hamas and provide it with a political horizon, although it cannot be guaranteed that it will adhere to its terms once implementation begins.

As usual, the problem lies in the details. Israel demands the handover of light (rifles) and heavy (missiles) weapons, and the continued destruction of tunnels, while also insisting on the completion of disarmament before a full withdrawal from the Strip.

On the other hand, although Hamas has remained relatively silent since the announcement of progress in negotiations, it insists that it agreed only to deposit weapons with the technocratic government, not to hand them over to Israel.

Meanwhile, the international stabilization force currently includes only 200 soldiers from Uganda and Morocco, and is expected to deploy in the first phase near the Rafah crossing to secure the entry of humanitarian aid.

In addition, the Mladenov plan includes dismantling local militias opposed to Hamas, which could expose their members to the risk of elimination by the movement, potentially driving them to seek protection or evacuation from Israel.

Michael Milstein, a senior researcher at the Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University, told Haaretz that he is highly skeptical that Hamas has changed its approach or become willing to abandon its “ideology of resistance” and hand over all its weapons.

In his view, the implementation of the agreement could gradually falter. He believes that Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey played a central role in persuading Hamas, attributing this to their apprehension regarding Netanyahu’s threats to fully occupy the Gaza Strip, as well as his policy of “security belts,” which he also seeks to impose in Syria and southern Lebanon.

He further considers that Trump’s statements and recent moves may indicate a decline in Israeli influence in Washington, potentially paving the way for future American demands for similar Israeli withdrawals from Syria and Lebanon.

In this context, senior Israeli officials estimate that if the United States insists on the withdrawal of the Israeli military from the Gaza Strip before Hamas disarms, “we may be on a course for direct confrontation with Washington,” according to Channel 13.

They assert that “Israel will not retreat an inch before Hamas disarms,” adding that Netanyahu is “on the eve of elections and will not agree to any withdrawal without the disarmament of the Strip.”

The Israeli Broadcasting Authority (Kan) reported that the Peace Council expects the implementation of the fifteen-point document to begin in the coming days.

According to the agreement, which Israel is not a party to but is instead a document between the movement, the mediators, and the Peace Council, Hamas will halt all its military activities, including military expansion and force-building, during the fourteen days counted from the date of implementation, after which the disarmament process will begin.

In return, Israel will also be required to commit to a ceasefire in accordance with the agreement signed in October 2025. According to sources, Hamas has submitted its approval of the document to the United States, Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey.

Kan learned that Article 8, which paves the way for realizing the Palestinian right to self-determination, has drawn criticism even within Hamas itself. According to a source familiar with the discussions, Hamas wanted the wording to specify that the implementation of the plan constitutes fulfillment of all necessary conditions for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

US sources consider it a significant achievement that Hamas agreed to a clause stipulating that the technocratic committee (the bureaucracy committee) in Gaza would be the sole entity retaining weapons.

A Peace Council official told Kan: “We are not asking Israel for anything it has not already signed. Israel gets an opportunity here to see Hamas voluntarily disarm. There is nothing in this document that was not already present in the twenty-point document, and we hope Gaza will follow a path of prosperity, not terrorism.”

He clarified: “This is a document prepared by the mediators and the Peace Council with Hamas. Israel’s reservations have been taken into account, and anything not resolved in the text of the document itself will be addressed during the implementation phase, during which the executive procedures, implementation mechanisms, and timelines are expected to be finalized in the coming two weeks.”

For his part, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir attacked the Peace Council’s draft agreement, stating: “This draft is unacceptable for Israel and will only serve to enable Hamas to regroup.”

Ron Ben-Yishai, a military analyst for Yedioth Ahronoth, believes that “the roadmap will keep Hamas as the strongest entity in the Strip behind the scenes,” and considers the plan to “bind the hands of the Israeli military.”

He added that the “vague statement of intent from the Global Peace Council leaves the reality of the movement in the Gaza Strip exactly as it is for Hezbollah in Lebanon, with Hamas gaining immunity from assassination and achieving a win in public consciousness in the form of a path toward an independent Palestinian state, all in exchange for a weapon that Israel has practically destroyed.”

Ben Yishai emphasized that “the plan places the Israeli government in the role of the giver, and Hamas in the position of the winner.”