U.S. President Donald Trump says his Board of Peace has reached an agreement intended to disarm Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza, presenting the plan as a major step toward ending the conflict. Yet statements from the parties involved show that the most difficult questionsâwho moves first, how compliance will be verified and when Israeli forces would withdrawâremain unresolved.
What the proposed agreement contains
Trump said the arrangement would remove weapons in phases while Israeli forces gradually pull back. Egypt, Qatar and Turkey were credited with helping mediate. The plan also envisages an international stabilisation force, a newly organised Palestinian police unit and a technocratic Palestinian administration taking responsibility for civilian governance.
The announcement is diplomatically significant because disarmament has long been one of the principal obstacles to advancing beyond temporary ceasefires. It does not, however, mean that weapons have already been surrendered or that a final peace settlement has entered into force.
The dispute over sequencing
A senior Hamas official said implementation depends on Israel first meeting commitments associated with an earlier agreement, including halting military operations, withdrawing forces and increasing humanitarian access. An Israeli official has taken the opposite position, arguing that withdrawal cannot come before Hamas disarms and Gaza is demilitarised.
That disagreement creates a circular problem: each side is demanding the other complete its central obligation first. Any workable mechanism would therefore need detailed timelines, independent monitoring and clear consequences for violations.
Why the announcement matters
If implemented, the agreement could reshape security and governance in Gaza and open a path to larger reconstruction efforts. More than two dozen countries are associated with Trump’s Board of Peace initiative, and billions of dollars have reportedly been pledged for reconstruction. Critics, however, question the board’s authority and the limited Palestinian representation in its structure.
Violence has also continued on the ground, underscoring the gap between a political announcement and conditions facing civilians. The coming days will show whether mediators can turn broad principles into a signed, enforceable sequence accepted by both Israel and Hamas.
