Gaza... Between the Ambitious Declaration and Implementation Obstacles

- Trump’s plan is a “roadmap,” not a final agreement

- Hamas’s acceptance of the “historic agreement” signals a radical shift in its rhetoric and policies

- From an Israeli perspective... it resembles a “political defeat,” and Netanyahu may overturn the table or redefine “victory”

On July 31, former President Donald Trump took an unprecedented step in the history of American diplomacy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, announcing via the “X” platform that the “Peace Council” had reached a “historic” agreement to disarm Hamas and armed factions in the Gaza Strip, as part of his 20-point plan to end the war.

However, this announcement, described as an “absolute gamble” on the possibility of achieving a breakthrough in a stalled file for nine months, was quickly met with Israeli skepticism and doubt, reflecting a state of anticipation and ambiguity regarding the fate of this agreement.

Political analysts emphasize that this roadmap “goes beyond merely announcing a ceasefire, as it attempts to establish practical mechanisms for governing the post-war phase, including arrangements for Gaza’s administration, reconstruction, and security, thereby giving it greater political and operational significance than previous proposals.”

However, they simultaneously warn that “the proposal does not eliminate fundamental differences between the parties. Hamas and Israel have different interpretations of the agreement and the roadmap, and have set their own priorities to serve their interests first; therefore, the implementation phase is likely to face its toughest test.”

The core provision stipulates the handover of factions’ weapons, the dismantling of military infrastructure and tunnels, and the storage of weapons under international supervision. However, ambiguity surrounds the essential details, as Hamas speaks of “depositing heavy weapons” with the National Committee, rather than handing them over to the occupation, as Netanyahu desires.

A Peace Council official clarified that the process of handing over heavy weapons and dismantling tunnels could take between 200 and 350 days. This long timeline raises serious questions about the potential for repeated disputes over compliance, which could delay the Israeli withdrawal, as Netanyahu refuses to implement the agreement’s provisions until after disarmament, contrary to Trump’s announcement.

The plan calls for the formation of the “National Committee for the Administration of Gaza,” a technocratic Palestinian body that would assume civil and security responsibilities in the Strip, replacing Hamas’s government. However, analysts point to significant challenges facing this committee, including the need to secure broad Palestinian consensus, reorganize institutions, and obtain sufficient funding for reconstruction.

The agreement stipulates a gradual withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces, linked to tangible progress in the disarmament process, as Netanyahu desires. Here lies the fundamental dilemma: Netanyahu’s insistence that any withdrawal must be conditional on the “real disarmament of Hamas” – a frustrating condition, as there is no defined quantity, inventory, or types of weapons present amidst a thicket of militias funded and armed by Tel Aviv in recent months. Meanwhile, Hamas demands a halt to attacks and an actual withdrawal before handing over weapons, seeking guarantees to stop invasions and assassinations, and to halt the supply of weapons, drugs, and other privileges to occupation militias, a recipe that constitutes a formula for civil war.

The international force is expected to include troops from Kosovo, Albania, Morocco, and Uganda, to secure the transitional phase, protect aid, and train the Palestinian police. However, reports indicate that the international stabilization force has not yet been effectively deployed, while the reconstruction plan has been described as “ambitious but unfunded,” requiring $2 billion, 5,000 personnel with weapons and headquarters in the Gaza Strip and on the borders, military vehicles, a communications network, and international and Arab logistical support.

Sources from the Committee and the Peace Council indicate that there are currently no funds in the Council’s treasury. Despite Trump’s announcement of billions of dollars in allocations, the Financial Times reported on May 27 that no donor funds had reached the World Bank, and informed sources confirmed that “not a single US dollar” has been spent so far on Gaza’s reconstruction through the Council’s financing mechanisms.

Although Netanyahu previously expressed support for Trump’s plan, his practical stance revealed significant reservations, and he proceeded to erect obstacles. Israeli political sources confirmed that Israel “does not accept the roadmap as is,” conveying its objections to the Peace Council, noting that it holds a different interpretation of all the provisions.

Military analyst Ronen Bergman, writing in Yedioth Ahronoth, stated that the agreement “is not a victory,” and that Netanyahu has conceded most of the five demands he set a year ago to end the war. Bergman concluded unequivocally: “If we measure the outcome according to the conditions Netanyahu himself set, it is difficult to describe it as a complete victory, or even a partial one. This roadmap is a defeat for Netanyahu.”

Netanyahu faces intense pressure from his right-wing allies, foremost among them National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, who described the agreement as “unacceptable” and tantamount to Israel consenting to “Hamas running the day after.”

This internal division, coupled with the elections scheduled for October 2026, places Netanyahu in an extremely precarious position as he attempts to appease Trump on one hand and his far-right voters on the other.

The Times of Israel Center analyzed the dilemma facing Netanyahu, noting that the agreement may validate critics who argued that the “complete victory” Netanyahu has long sought has eluded him, and that the Gaza Strip may finally be resolved not through unconditional surrender, but via an agreement with Hamas that offers the Strip a future after its destruction, establishes a “Palestinian government,” and revives the prospect of a two-state solution.

Hamas’s acceptance of the general principles of the plan is a historic event, a fact acknowledged by senior Israeli analysts even as they criticized the details. Tsvi Bruell, writing in Haaretz, pointed out that Hamas’s agreement to relinquish security control is well-known and had been announced multiple times before, and that the principle of handing over weapons is “the most consequential decision in the movement’s history.”

Analysts believe the movement’s flexibility largely reflects the heavy human, military, and political costs of the protracted conflict, which “encouraged Hamas to respond more quickly to mediation initiatives.” He noted that Hamas has shown greater flexibility on issues previously considered non-negotiable, seeking to ensure that any concessions are met with reciprocal Israeli commitments, amid Arab and Islamic retreat and the massacres carried out by the Israeli army and widespread destruction without any deterrent.

The biggest obstacle remains the disagreement over “who acts first.” Israel demands actual disarmament before withdrawal, while Hamas and its allies demand a halt to hostilities and actual withdrawal before handing over weapons. The roadmap attempts to address this through parallel actions, but this requires a high degree of trust that is currently absent.

Analyses suggest that verifying Hamas’s surrender of all its weapons, particularly hidden tunnels and rockets, is a near-impossible task in a hostile and complex environment, giving Israel an excuse to freeze the withdrawal. The proposal has not yet provided a detailed explanation of how independent verification of Hamas’s disarmament would be conducted.

The most pressing question is whether the “National Committee” can fill the vacuum left by Hamas, impose its control, and gain popular legitimacy in devastated Gaza.

Analysts point out that the committee will face significant obstacles, including securing broad Palestinian consensus, reorganizing institutions, and obtaining adequate funding.

Iran represents another source of uncertainty. A U.S. official stated that Tehran urged Hamas not to accept the deal, but added that Iran’s capacity to support the group may be limited due to its preoccupation with its conflict with the United States.

The movement’s acceptance of the agreement constitutes a radical shift in its rhetoric and policies, analysts note, representing an attempt to adapt to the realities of war rather than a fundamental ideological transformation.

From an Israeli perspective, the agreement in its current form represents a retreat from the conditions previously set by Netanyahu’s government, making it akin to a “political defeat” in the eyes of Israeli analysts themselves.

Netanyahu finds himself in a dilemma, facing contradictory pressures from Trump, who wants the deal to pass, and his right-wing allies, who threaten to topple his government. Furthermore, Chatham House analyses have concluded that “Netanyahu’s policies have collapsed one after another” in the face of U.S. pressure.

The most pressing question is whether this announcement will mark the true beginning of a new phase in Gaza, or whether it will join the long list of initiatives that remained confined to drawers and negotiation tables.

As analysts emphasize, the answer will not be determined by statements and declarations, but by what unfolds on the ground in the coming weeks and months.

Ultimately, the bet rests on the ability of international and regional actors—led by Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey—to bridge the gap between the Israeli and Palestinian positions and to build genuine trust on the ground; otherwise, this ambitious agreement will remain merely another “declaration paper” in the history of the protracted conflict.