The 15-point peace roadmap for the Gaza Strip was hailed by US President Donald Trump as a “historic deal”.
Under the plan, civilian governance in Gaza would be transferred to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG); Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups would disarm in stages, while Israeli forces would gradually withdraw from the territory.
A notable feature of the plan is that Hamas would not be required to hand over its weapons to Israel. Instead, the weapons would be placed under the supervision of the NCAG.
Hamas’s acceptance of the plan in principle marked a significant concession, as the movement had previously rejected demands for disarmament on numerous occasions.
Paradoxically, however, the plan to disarm Hamas has encountered opposition from Israel, a key US ally in the Middle East. On August 9, Israel announced that it rejected the US-backed plan for the Gaza Strip, insisting that its military would not withdraw from Gaza until Hamas had been completely disarmed.
Hamas, for its part, has also rejected unilateral disarmament before Israel ends its military operations and withdraws from Gaza.
This leaves the biggest question — and the central sticking point in the Gaza deadlock — unresolved: which side should act first? Should Hamas disarm before Israel withdraws, or should Israeli forces leave Gaza before Hamas lays down its weapons?
Israel has its reasons for insisting that Hamas surrender its weapons first.
First, with Israel’s general election in October 2026 drawing closer, domestic political pressure is mounting. Any move perceived as a concession over Gaza could prove politically risky for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and potentially threaten his hold on power.
Second, Israel is reluctant to accept the security risk of withdrawing its forces only to face the possibility that Hamas could subsequently regroup and rebuild its military capabilities.
Another issue raising considerable doubts is the question of how Gaza will be governed after the war.
After nearly three years of conflict in the Gaza Strip, negotiations have gradually shifted from hostage exchanges, humanitarian aid access and de-escalation towards the broader questions of post-war governance and reconstruction.
Under the roadmap, all civilian administration and security functions in Gaza would be transferred to the NCAG, a new Palestinian administrative body operating independently during the transitional period.
Yet a major question remains over whether this governing body will have sufficient capacity to administer the territory and maintain security under highly complex conditions, thereby preventing a post-war security vacuum.
For Palestinians in Gaza and the international community, despite the many unresolved issues, the peace roadmap unveiled by President Donald Trump has kindled a fragile hope that residents may finally have an opportunity to rebuild their lives after years spent amid relentless conflict.
United Nations agencies have warned that at least 300 children in the Gaza Strip have been killed over roughly the past 300 days, since a ceasefire between Hamas and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) officially took effect in October 2025.
Regional media have estimated that rebuilding Gaza will require around 71.4 billion USD over the next decade. A considerable gap therefore remains between expectations surrounding the peace roadmap and the realities of implementing it.
Washington currently has strong incentives to advance the Gaza roadmap, as the initiative bears the distinct foreign-policy imprint of US President Donald Trump and the United States more broadly.
However, securing agreement among all parties on a comprehensive and sustainable plan will require their respective interests to be carefully balanced. None of the parties is willing to assume excessive risks in the complex “chessboard” of Gaza, where their strategic interests are deeply intertwined.
The prospects for lasting peace in the Gaza Strip therefore remain highly fragile.
