The July 2026 announcement that the Board of Peace brokered a disarmament deal for Gaza marks a decisive test of reciprocal compliance, sequencing, and enforcement in a war that has already reshaped regional politics. While U.S. officials and Board members frame the agreement as a breakthrough, the core tension remains unchanged: whether disarmament and withdrawal can move in lockstep when each side insists the other must move first.
The deal’s architecture: phases, reciprocity, and “one authority, one weapon”
The Board of Peace’s 15‑point roadmap is designed around phased, reciprocal steps: weapons are decommissioned and verified area by area, and Israeli forces withdraw in tandem, not before full demilitarization is complete. This is coupled with the “one government, one legal system, one legitimate security authority” principle, under which the technocratic National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) assumes civilian and security administration as weapons are removed and stored under international supervision. The International Stabilization Force (ISF), UN‑authorized and composed of troops from multiple countries, is tasked with securing depots, assisting collection, and training a new Palestinian police force that will eventually hold the monopoly on weapons.
What Hamas says it will do—and what it demands first
Hamas’s public stance blends acceptance with conditionality. Hamas negotiators have indicated agreement to provisions addressing weapons and gradual Israeli withdrawal, but they insist that implementation be overseen by the Board of Peace and mediators to ensure Israel complies. Ghazi Hamad of Hamas’s negotiating team told reporters,
“We will not take any steps regarding disarmament before Israel withdraws from the Gaza Strip,”
and said the NCAG would carry out disarmament without Israeli involvement. Other Hamas sources told AFP that a committee established by the Board of Peace to govern Gaza would oversee the storage of the movement’s weapons, and that mediators must ensure Israel’s gradual withdrawal. A Hamas member told Al Jazeera that all implementation would be conditioned on Israel implementing its part of the deal, underscoring the group’s sequencing demand.
What Israel says it will do—and what it demands first
Israeli officials and diplomatic sources have repeatedly stressed that the roadmap must meet Jerusalem’s core security demand: complete demilitarization before any significant IDF withdrawal. Israeli sources said the 15‑point plan does not fully address Jerusalem’s demand for Hamas’s complete demilitarization before any IDF withdrawal from Gaza. Under the reported plan, Hamas would have no role in governing Gaza, openly or covertly, with NCAG holding full authority, and all heavy and light weapons, tunnels, depots and production facilities would be decommissioned based on reciprocity and independent verification. An Israeli diplomatic source said Israel would not withdraw from the Yellow Line dividing Gaza until disarmament is completed, and that Hamas weapons would be transferred over weeks to depots secured by the ISF while the IDF remains on the Yellow Line. Earlier, an Israeli official told Reuters that the 15‑point document does not provide a satisfactory response to [the country’s] demands and that Israel had conveyed its objections.
The U.S. and Board of Peace: “zero trust,” verification, and confidence
The Board of Peace and senior U.S. officials present the agreement as the culmination of months of “intensive, good faith negotiations,” with verification designed around “zero trust.” Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social,
“Today, the Board of Peace reached a HISTORIC agreement for the COMPLETE DISARMAMENT of Hamas and all other armed groups in Gaza… The agreement will be carried out in carefully structured phases. As disarmament is completed, Israeli forces will withdraw, and the International Stabilization Force will work with a new Palestinian police force…”
Board chair Nickolay Mladenov described the deal as a “historic breakthrough,” saying Hamas has for the first time committed to “an actionable plan for relinquishing all its weapons,” followed by Israeli withdrawal. Mladenov emphasized:
“Implementation and verification have to be real. Withdrawal must move in lockstep with decommissioning.”
A Board official said the process is designed around “zero trust,” with each stage contingent on independent verification that both sides have met obligations. Senior U.S. officials told Axios that Hamas agreed after “very delicate” negotiations with Egypt, Qatar and Turkey, and that implementation is expected to begin in the coming weeks. They also noted intense pressure from Egyptian intelligence chief Hassan Rashad on Hamas, and that Iran tried to persuade Hamas to reject the deal but failed.
The sequencing dilemma: who moves first in a “zero‑trust” environment?
The heart of the stalemate is sequencing. Trump and the Board describe a phased, reciprocal process; some Hamas figures insist on Israeli withdrawal before any disarmament steps. Israeli sources counter that the IDF will remain on the Yellow Line until disarmament is completed, and that weapons will be transferred to depots secured by the ISF while Israel retains leverage. This creates a classic prisoner’s dilemma in a “zero‑trust” setting: each side fears that moving first will be exploited, and each demands ironclad guarantees that the other will follow through. U.S. and Board officials acknowledge the tension but argue that area‑by‑area verification, coupled with the ISF’s presence and the NCAG’s authority, can reduce risk enough to start the process.
Timelines, tunnels, and the “one authority” test
Timelines remain a major source of uncertainty. Estimates range from 200–250 days to up to 320 days, with some U.S. officials downplaying longer figures; a precise, public timetable has not been released. The plan calls for Hamas to provide maps of its tunnel network, weapons‑production facilities and arms depots, and to eliminate tunnels, depots and production sites as part of the process. Weapons would be transferred to depots secured by the ISF and mediators, under a “zero‑trust” verification regime. A new Palestinian police force, vetted in part by Israel’s Shin Bet, would be trained and deployed in areas under NCAG control, eventually holding a monopoly on weapons in Gaza. Around 10,000 members of Gaza’s Hamas‑linked police are to be “rehabilitated” to enforce law and order under the technocratic administration. Anti‑Hamas militias armed by Israel during the war are also to be disarmed and dismantled, and a weapons buyback program would offer payments to militants who voluntarily surrender personal weapons.
Regional and international reactions: endorsements, skepticism, and leverage
Regional mediators—Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey—are credited with exerting “intense pressure” on Hamas to accept, with Egyptian intelligence chief Hassan Rashad playing a key role due to his relationship with Hamas political leader Khalil al‑Hayya. The EU, Türkiye, and others have broadly welcomed Trump’s initiatives, with the EU stating,
“President Trump’s Gaza proposal represents an opportunity for enduring peace… Israel has agreed to the plan, and Hamas must now endorse it without delay, beginning with the immediate release of hostages.”
Türkiye’s president said,
“I applaud U.S. President Donald Trump’s initiatives and leadership aimed at stopping the violence Gaza and a ceasefire Türkiye persist in contributing to the process aimed at establishing a fair and lasting peace acceptable to all parties.”
Russia said,
“Russia consistently supports and welcomes any initiatives by Trump aimed at concluding the ongoing tragedy.”
UN Secretary‑General António Guterres, while welcoming the agreement, urged all concerned to “abide fully” by its terms, reflecting cautious optimism and calls for adherence to commitments.
Where the deal could break—and how it could hold
The agreement could break if either side interprets “reciprocity” in a way that stalls the next phase: Hamas if it sees insufficient Israeli withdrawal or aid flow, Israel if it sees incomplete decommissioning or hidden weapons. It could hold if the ISF’s presence, area‑by‑area verification, and the NCAG’s authority create a credible path where each side sees tangible benefits from compliance. U.S. officials said the US is “very confident” Israel will adhere, but
“very sceptical that Hamas will disarm,”
adding that Trump would be “very, very disappointed” if Israel does not implement its commitments. As of the latest reports, no formal, on‑the‑record statement from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office confirming acceptance has appeared, only diplomatic‑source comments and earlier objections.
What “blinking first” really means in Gaza
In practice, “blinking first” will be measured in small, visible steps: the first weapons handover to an ISF‑secured depot, the first IDF pullback from a sector, the first NCAG‑led police deployment, and the first verified tunnel closure. If those steps accumulate without exploitation, the deal gains momentum; if one side halts, the other will likely follow, and the Board’s “zero‑trust” framework will be tested against political realities on the ground. The ultimate question is whether the Board of Peace can convert a high‑level roadmap into a credible, enforceable sequence that neither Hamas nor Israel can credibly reject without paying a steep price.
