This is one outlet's own report from Newsweek — the article as it was filed. Other outlets are covering the same event; open the full story to compare every source side by side.
Trump’s Board of Peace Is Powerless To Fix the ‘You First’ Problem
0 Share Newsweek is a Trust Project member See more of our trusted coverage when you search. Prefer Newsweek on Google to 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.”
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
AIPROPX is an independent multi-source news index — we track, compare, and connect coverage from across the web into one place you won't find anywhere else.
