Signs of possible progress towards ending the war in Gaza emerged in recent hours after the US administration announced that it had reached a roadmap for the gradual containment and storage of weapons held by the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, in exchange for a phased Israeli withdrawal from the enclave.
The transitional arrangements would also transfer Gaza’s administration to a Palestinian civilian body supported by an international force.
However, the absence of an official Israeli position, combined with continued differences between the conditions set by the two sides, has left the initiative dependent on complex political and field-level tests.
The US administration maintains that the plan asks Israel only to honour commitments it previously accepted under the September 2025 agreement on a ceasefire and the release of Israeli captives held by Hamas.
Israel’s Position Remains Unclear
The Washington Post reported that the United States, through Egyptian mediation, had succeeded in developing a framework of understanding between Israel and Hamas.
Under the proposed arrangement, Hamas would relinquish its weapons in stages in exchange for the gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, opening the way for reconstruction after nearly three years of war.
US President Donald Trump described the agreement in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, as “historic”, saying it provided for the “complete disarmament of Hamas and all other armed groups in Gaza” and represented “a tremendous step towards lasting peace and security”.
He said the stages of disarmament would proceed in parallel with the Israeli withdrawal, with an international stabilisation force replacing the Israeli military and operating in coordination with a restructured Palestinian police service.
According to The Washington Post, the US administration argues that the plan asks Israel only to comply with what it had already accepted under the September 2025 agreement concerning the ceasefire and the release of Israeli captives held by Hamas.
An unnamed US official told the newspaper: “We are not asking Israel to do anything other than agree to the 20-point plan it initially accepted.”
The official added that Trump would be “very disappointed” if Israel retreated from its commitments.
The same official, however, acknowledged the difficulty of implementing the plan, saying: “We are going to try to do something that is extremely impossible.”
Despite the optimism expressed in Washington, Israel’s official position remained unclear. No response had been issued by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office by the day after Trump’s announcement.
The newspaper said the silence indicated that political obstacles remained, particularly after years of war had severely eroded trust between the parties.
Details of the Roadmap
The Guardian, in a report by its chief international correspondent Julian Borger, examined the details of the roadmap published by the Peace Council, the body tasked with supervising the implementation of Trump’s plan for Gaza.
The document calls for an end to military operations, the establishment of an international verification committee and the subsequent transfer of civilian administration to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza.
The committee, made up of Palestinian technocrats, would govern the enclave with the support of a trained Palestinian police force and an international stabilisation force.
Under the plan, heavy weapons would be removed, manufacturing sites and storage facilities dismantled, and the tunnel network disclosed in a process described as “gradual, sequenced and time-bound”.
These measures would take place alongside a phased Israeli withdrawal from areas of Gaza currently controlled by Israeli forces.
The Guardian quoted the Peace Council’s high representative, Nikolay Mladenov, as saying that reaching the agreement had required “months of difficult negotiations”.
“What the agreement says is important, but what happens next is more important,” he said. “Implementation and verification must be real, and withdrawal must proceed in parallel with disarmament.”
The Washington Post noted, however, that several central questions remain unanswered, including the composition of the new Palestinian administration, the countries that would participate in the international force, the timetable for its deployment and the mechanisms governing each phase of implementation.
The US administration views the agreement as a step towards establishing a new Palestinian government from which Hamas would be excluded.
Washington believes such an arrangement would permit reconstruction while ensuring, according to its stated position, that Gaza could not again be used as a base for attacks against Israel.
Hamas announced through Egyptian mediators that it had accepted the roadmap, but stressed that implementation was first dependent on Israel ending military operations and its aggression against the Palestinian enclave.
The movement also demanded a clear timetable for carrying out the agreement.
The Guardian reported that Hamas negotiating team member Ghazi Hamad said the movement “will not take any action relating to disarmament before Israel withdraws from the Gaza Strip”.
He also told Agence France-Presse that the agreement contained clear language requiring Israel to fulfil its commitments, and that Hamas would not implement its obligations unless Israel carried out the corresponding measures.
Hamas and Israel Maintain Opposing Conditions
The Financial Times reported that Hamas had also made the surrender of its heavy weapons conditional on an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
The position reflects the continuing gap between the parties despite their preliminary acceptance of the roadmap.
The central dispute, according to The Washington Post, concerns the order in which the steps are to be implemented.
Israel has long insisted on complete disarmament first, while Hamas maintains that Israel must withdraw and halt its military operations before any measure concerning its weapons can begin.
The newspaper quoted an Israeli official as saying that Israel continued to demand “the complete disarmament of Hamas, the removal of weapons from Gaza and the full demilitarisation of the enclave as a precondition for any process”.
The new roadmap partially bypasses that demand by adopting the principle of simultaneous implementation.
The Financial Times also highlighted the internal pressure facing Netanyahu.
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir urged him to reject the initiative, describing it as “unacceptable”.
Ben-Gvir repeated his position that the only solution was to “encourage migration and destroy Hamas”, arguing that any understanding with the movement would constitute a strategic mistake.
Criticism extended to other parts of the Israeli political establishment.
According to the Financial Times, Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman said that any agreement with Hamas would amount to a return to the policies that preceded the 7 October 2023 attack on southern Israel.
Former Israeli chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot said the initiative exposed the gap between Netanyahu’s promises and reality and reflected his political weakness ahead of elections scheduled for October.
Major Obstacles Remain
The Washington Post said Netanyahu’s electoral calculations may lead him to avoid any step that could be presented domestically as a concession to Hamas.
A US official said implementation could take between 200 and 350 days, with an emphasis on completing practical stages rather than adhering to rigid deadlines.
Despite the announcement of an international stabilisation force, major challenges remain in assembling it.
According to The Washington Post, several countries had suspended previous pledges to participate before the US administration said it had now secured commitments for more than 5,000 troops from various countries, which it did not name.
The Guardian noted that the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza is still prohibited from entering the enclave.
Training for the new Palestinian police force has also not begun, making implementation on the ground more difficult.
Several analysts argued that Hamas’s acceptance reflects changing conditions surrounding the movement rather than a fundamental change in its position.
The Guardian quoted researcher Muhammad Shehada as saying Hamas had become more willing to relinquish the burden of governing Gaza due to popular and economic pressure.
He also pointed to disappointment that Iran had not linked its agreement with the United States to an end to the war in Gaza, as well as Hamas’s fear that Israel could resume military operations at full intensity.
Implementation Will Determine the Outcome
The Financial Times quoted Amjad Iraqi, a researcher at the International Crisis Group, as saying Hamas may be attempting to buy time and place responsibility for obstructing the agreement on Israel in the eyes of the US administration.
He expressed doubt that the movement would readily abandon the armed component that forms part of its political identity.
Israeli military operations in Gaza continued despite the announcement.
Israel said it had killed officials within Hamas’s supply network, while media reports said further Palestinian casualties had been recorded in air strikes following the initiative.
The developments indicated that conditions on the ground had not yet changed.
The humanitarian crisis also continued to weigh heavily on the situation.
The Washington Post, citing the World Food Programme, reported that conditions for civilians in Gaza remained “harsh”, with continuing shortages of water, medicine and essential services.
The situation has intensified international pressure for an agreement capable of being implemented.
While the US administration sees Hamas’s acceptance of the roadmap as an unprecedented opportunity to break the political deadlock, the Israeli government’s silence and the unresolved dispute over the order of implementation make the announcement appear closer to the beginning of a new negotiating phase than a final settlement.
The central question is whether US pressure can transform the declaration into reality on the ground.
Ultimately, implementation will depend on whether international parties can bridge the gap between Israeli and Hamas demands and compel both sides to carry out their commitments simultaneously while addressing Gaza’s humanitarian and security conditions.
