...
By David Averre
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Donald Trump took to social media last week to announce his brilliantly conceived Board of Peace had reached a “historic agreement” in what he claimed was a “monumental step” to achieving peace and security in Gaza.
The Board of Peace’s official account on X promptly released the plan in full: a grand, 15-point roadmap promising Hamas’s disarmament, Israeli withdrawal, an interim Palestinian administration, reconstruction and, eventually, a path toward Palestinian self-determination and statehood.
There was almost everything, in fact, except an agreement capable of beginning. Over the weekend, Israel launched fresh strikes on the Gaza Strip, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday rejected Trump’s plan, saying the Trump administration “sent us a draft. We did not agree.”
Read More on Analysis
For all the trumpeting on social media, the Board of Peace plan fails to resolve the immediate problem. Israel will not withdraw while Hamas remains armed, and Hamas will not disarm while Israeli forces remain in Gaza.
Until one side moves, any historic agreement is little more than a reshuffling of paperwork.
Locksteps To Nowhere
The Board of Peace’s roadmap is by no means foolishly designed. In fact, its authors have gone to great lengths to address each side’s concerns.
Hamas’s military infrastructure would be dismantled in a process the text calls “gradual, sequential and time-bound.” The process would be directly “linked to an Israeli withdrawal, in phases.” To ensure full compliance, an International Verification Committee (IVC) would certify each side’s completion of the actions required in each phase before the next stage could begin.
The National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG)—a UN-mandated Palestinian group of technocrats—would temporarily assume responsibility for the territory’s day-to-day administration and take possession of weapons from Palestinian groups. Meanwhile, an International Stabilization Force, or ISF, would deploy to separate Israeli forces from NCAG-controlled areas, train Palestinian police, and uphold the ceasefire.
Nickolay Mladenov, the accomplished Bulgarian diplomat, former foreign and defense minister and now Board of Peace’s representative for Gaza, summarized the intended mechanism neatly: Israel’s withdrawal would move in “lockstep” with Hamas’ relinquishing of arms.
On paper, this painstaking choreography bridges the yawning chasm between the two sides. It is designed to ensure that Hamas does not simply surrender its capabilities in the hope that Israel eventually leaves. Israel, in turn, is not expected to withdraw only to discover later that Hamas still maintains a tunnel network and caches of rockets.
It sounds like a great idea. Absolutely none of it matters, though, until both sides accept the roadmap and stop fighting.
Netanyahu says the Israel Defense Forces, or IDF, will remain on their current lines until Hamas has been completely disarmed. Hamas negotiator Ghazi Hamad has stated the reverse: the group will take no disarmament step before an Israeli withdrawal.
Netanyahu says Hamas first. Hamas says Israel first. Gaza’s residents continue to suffer.
...
An Agreement Without Measurements
Even if both parties somehow agreed to another total ceasefire—a prospect that from current standings appears a long way off—the roadmap does not explain how its phased approach and “lockstep” mechanism would actually be measured.
It says movement between phases will depend upon the “verified completion” of the previous phase by the IVC—a multinational group of representatives and Board of Peace delegates. But completion of what, exactly?
Suppose Hamas closes a set of its tunnels and transfers a set of weapons to the NCAG. Which Israeli units then withdraw, and from which sector? How many Hamas rockets equal one IDF-controlled neighborhood?
The roadmap leaves those questions unanswered. Instead, it defers them to an implementation timetable that would be prepared within 14 days after all parties approve the framework. In other words, both parties are expected to agree to a ceasefire and agree to surrender their leverage bit by bit, with no guarantees or details on how the opposite side would be held to account.
Related Story
The Middle East’s Most Dangerous Chokepoint Has No Oil
Even a rigorous IVC verification process could not remove all ambiguity. An Israeli withdrawal from Gaza would at least be visible: monitors could identify and track the movement of IDF troops, vehicles and military posts. Tracking Hamas’s disarmament is another question; inspectors may verify that 500 rockets were surrendered, but proving that a 501st does not exist somewhere beneath Gaza is considerably harder.
Israel can always argue that one more tunnel or one more weapons cache remains. Hamas can always argue that “complete disarmament” has become an impossible standard used to postpone an Israeli withdrawal indefinitely.
And, what if one or both parties reject the findings of the verification committee? Is there an appeal process, or a way for the ruling to be challenged? Would the ISF have the authority to enforce a disputed ruling?
To Enjoy Peace, You Must Abandon Your Power
Hamas has good reasons to want an agreement. Israeli strikes would stop, troops would leave, and the group would be relieved of the increasingly thankless burden of governing a devastated territory and administering services it can barely provide.
However, the Board of Peace plan effectively requires Hamas to abolish itself as Gaza’s ruling force. It must surrender Gaza’s civilian government, security apparatus and armed power to the NCAG under the principle of “One Authority, One Law, One Weapon.” That’s a huge price to pay, one that Hamas’s leaders can’t stomach unless Israel completely withdraws from the Strip.
...
For Netanyahu, the political incentives are equally sharp.
Israel goes to the polls on October 27 to elect a brand new Knesset, and the prime minister faces a difficult reelection battle in which national security will play a central role. Accepting withdrawal before Hamas’s complete disarmament would require Netanyahu to retreat from his promise of “total victory” and risk alienating the hard-right voters and political allies he needs to remain in power.
Even if the agreement were to somehow succeed, the credit would be shared among Trump, the Board of Peace, Arab mediators and the new Palestinian administration. If Hamas rearmed or launched any attack that killed a single Israeli citizen, the blame would fall overwhelmingly on Netanyahu.
We simply don’t know. Nor do Israel or Hamas.
Accepting any kind of agreement with Hamas would require him to abandon his promise of “total victory” over Hamas, and anger the hard right elements of his government that keep him in power. Losing the premiership would also mean losing his insulation against a long-running corruption investigation.
The Board of Peace has produced a detailed description of what the path to peace in Gaza will look like. No one is willing to take the first step down it.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines