Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly rejected a 15-point Gaza peace plan proposed by the Board of Peace, led by U.S. President Donald Trump, stating that Israeli forces will not withdraw from the enclave until Hamas is genuinely disarmed.
Hamas reaffirmed its commitment to the plan, which requires militant groups to lay down arms in exchange for phased Israeli troop withdrawals. The plan includes storing weapons under supervision by a Palestinian technocratic committee backed by the Board of Peace and vetted international groups. However, Israel has insisted that Hamas must disarm before any withdrawal occurs, a sequencing that Hamas has not accepted.
Immediate Developments
On Sunday, Netanyahu told his cabinet, “Israel rejects the 15-point document.” He emphasized that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will not withdraw from Gaza until Hamas is fully disarmed, including all heavy and light weapons. Netanyahu added that Israel prioritizes its national security and will resist pressure to compromise on this stance.
Hamas responded in a statement, affirming its commitment to the agreement and calling on mediators to ensure all parties adhere to the terms. The group stated it would continue engaging with efforts to implement the roadmap, aiming to end the conflict and alleviate civilian suffering in Gaza.
Key Points of Contention
The primary dispute centers on the sequencing of disarmament and withdrawal. The Board of Peace’s plan proposed a phased approach, where Hamas would disarm incrementally as Israeli forces pull back. Israel has rejected this, insisting on full disarmament upfront before any troop withdrawal.
Netanyahu also reiterated his opposition to a Palestinian state, stating, “As long as I am Prime Minister, a Palestinian state will not be established — neither in Gaza nor in Judea and Samaria.”
International and Domestic Reactions
The Board of Peace’s CEO, Nickolay Mladenov, downplayed the necessity of immediate Israeli participation, stating that the roadmap is an agreement between the Board of Peace and Hamas, with no immediate obligations for Israel. However, Netanyahu framed his rejection as a matter of national security, asserting that Israel will stand firm even against close allies when necessary.
Within Israel, political reactions have been mixed. Far-right members of the government, such as Itamar Ben-Gvir, have publicly criticized the plan as unacceptable. Meanwhile, mainstream opposition politicians have raised concerns about the feasibility of full disarmament and the sequencing of the agreement.
Military and Humanitarian Context
The IDF had recently intensified strikes in Gaza, resulting in hundreds of fatalities, before scaling back operations under new policy directives. Hamas leadership, based in Qatar and Turkey, has exerted pressure on regional actors, including the Board of Peace, to halt targeted killings by Israel. The IDF confirmed that opportunities for strikes were missed due to government policy, though Israeli officials denied this claim.
Analysts affiliated with Hamas argue that Israel’s rejection is politically motivated, particularly ahead of elections, and that international pressure will eventually force Israel to comply with the plan. They view Hamas’s public commitment to the agreement as a demonstration of its willingness to engage in the peace process.
Background and Broader Implications
The conflict in Gaza has persisted for years, with multiple ceasefires failing to hold. The latest ceasefire, brokered in October 2023, has seen intermittent violence despite international efforts to stabilize the region. The Board of Peace’s plan was presented as a potential breakthrough, with the European Union and UK welcoming the framework as a crucial step toward peace.
However, the rejection by Israel underscores the deep divisions in the peace process. The dispute over sequencing—whether disarmament must precede withdrawal or occur simultaneously—remains a fundamental obstacle to any lasting agreement. Analysts suggest that without a compromise on this issue, the plan risks stalling indefinitely.