Trump Peace Board Backs Gaza Plan as Withdrawal Faces Resistance

President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace is trying to keep a U.S.-backed Gaza ceasefire framework alive while addressing Israel’s objections to a plan that links Hamas disarmament with a phased Israeli withdrawal. The effort has become increasingly difficult after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the proposed sequencing, arguing that Israeli forces should not pull back until Hamas has been fully disarmed.

The dispute has left the diplomatic process in a delicate position. The Board of Peace continues to describe the roadmap as operative, while Israeli officials have resisted the timetable implied by the plan. Hamas, meanwhile, has continued to support the broader framework but insists that Israeli military operations and territorial control must be reduced as part of the process. A series of Israeli strikes in Gaza since the latest round of diplomacy has further complicated efforts to preserve the ceasefire.

The central disagreement is therefore not simply whether there should be an Israeli withdrawal. The roadmap already envisages one. The harder question is when withdrawal should begin, what level of Hamas disarmament must occur first, and who has the authority to verify that security commitments have actually been fulfilled.

Why Israel Is Resisting the Proposed Withdrawal Sequence

Trump’s Gaza framework calls for the territory to become free of Hamas military control, followed by a staged transition involving Palestinian civilian administration, an International Stabilization Force and the withdrawal of Israeli forces according to agreed benchmarks. The Board of Peace’s July 30 roadmap says Israeli forces are to withdraw in phases while the decommissioning of armed groups is monitored and verified.

For Netanyahu’s government, however, the sequencing remains a major security concern.

Netanyahu rejected the 15-point U.S.-backed proposal on August 9, saying Israel would not accept a process that allowed withdrawal before Hamas had surrendered its weapons. Reuters reported that the Israeli government continued to insist on complete disarmament before a military pullout.

That position is rooted in Israel’s long-standing argument that a ceasefire without the removal of Hamas’ military capacity could provide the group with an opportunity to rebuild.

From the Israeli perspective, therefore, the issue is not merely territorial. It is about whether an international security arrangement can prevent Hamas or other armed factions from reconstructing military infrastructure after Israeli forces leave.

That concern helps explain why the Board of Peace has increasingly emphasized verification rather than relying on political commitments alone.

The Board of Peace Is Trying to Bridge the Security Gap

The Board of Peace has not abandoned the withdrawal framework despite Israel’s objections. Its official roadmap describes a phased process in which weapons, military production facilities, depots and tunnels would be decommissioned under monitoring by an International Verification Committee, with support from an International Stabilization Force. The roadmap also envisages a Palestinian administration, the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, taking responsibility for internal governance and security.

This structure is intended to answer Israel’s central concern: that withdrawal should be linked to measurable changes on the ground rather than based solely on promises.

The Board has also sought to reassure Israeli officials that the transition would not require an immediate, unconditional military departure. Reuters reported on August 10 that a Board of Peace official said the U.S. plan remained active and that implementation was designed to proceed in stages based on verified commitments.

That approach gives the plan some flexibility, but it also creates a practical problem. Each side can interpret the sequencing differently.

Israel wants security guarantees strong enough to justify withdrawal. Hamas wants the Israeli military presence and attacks reduced before surrendering its remaining leverage. Mediators are attempting to construct an arrangement in which both steps can occur without either side believing it has been asked to give up its most important bargaining position first.

Kushner’s Mission Produces Contact but No Breakthrough

The diplomatic effort received renewed attention in mid-August when Jared Kushner, Trump’s envoy and a senior figure in the Board of Peace process, held separate meetings with Hamas representatives and Netanyahu.

Kushner met Hamas political leader Khalil al-Hayya in Egypt before traveling to Jerusalem for talks with Netanyahu. Reuters reported on August 17 that the two days of diplomacy ended without a breakthrough, although working groups were established to discuss disarmament and public-health issues.

The meetings nevertheless showed that the diplomatic channel remains open.

The difficulty is that the basic sequencing dispute was not resolved. Israel continued to oppose a withdrawal before full Hamas disarmament, while Hamas maintained that Israeli military activity and territorial control must change as part of the process.

That deadlock has made the Board of Peace’s role increasingly important. The organization must persuade Israel that its security concerns can be addressed through verification and international guarantees while also persuading Hamas and regional mediators that the process can produce a genuine Israeli withdrawal rather than an open-ended security arrangement.

New Israeli Strikes Are Making the Diplomatic Task Harder

The political disagreement has been compounded by continuing violence in Gaza.

Turkey, Egypt and Qatar said on August 20 that recent Israeli strikes were undermining efforts to end the conflict. Reuters reported that at least 16 Palestinians had been killed in strikes since Tuesday, while the mediators urged Israel to comply with the ceasefire and avoid actions that could derail negotiations.

Associated Press reported that additional Israeli strikes on August 18 and 19 killed at least 17 Palestinians in several incidents, including an attack on a police station and another on a seaside café. Israel said it was targeting Hamas commanders and militants connected to the October 7, 2023 attack.

Those competing accounts illustrate why the ceasefire framework remains fragile. Israel argues that military action is necessary when it identifies security threats. Palestinian officials and mediators argue that continued strikes undermine the very diplomatic process intended to produce a more durable cessation of violence.

For the Board of Peace, that means the diplomatic challenge is no longer confined to designing a future political arrangement. It also involves preventing current military incidents from making the proposed transition impossible.

Humanitarian Relief Is Closely Linked to the Political Process

The Gaza negotiations also have a humanitarian dimension that cannot be separated from the security dispute.

The Board of Peace’s roadmap calls for international mechanisms to protect and deliver humanitarian assistance, while the proposed International Stabilization Force would help secure aid operations and train Palestinian police forces. Reconstruction is intended to proceed under the Board and Palestinian administration after the relevant security arrangements are put in place.

Yet humanitarian conditions remain severe.

An Associated Press report published August 23 described displaced Palestinians facing extreme hardship, with many families living in damaged buildings or makeshift camps and struggling to obtain food and cooking fuel. The report highlighted the continued dependence on aid and charity kitchens among vulnerable communities.

This creates another challenge for negotiators. A prolonged dispute over disarmament and withdrawal can delay reconstruction and normal civilian administration, while deteriorating humanitarian conditions can increase political pressure on Israel, the United States and regional mediators.

In practice, humanitarian progress can also strengthen diplomacy. Greater aid access and visible improvements in daily life could make it easier for mediators to sustain public support for a longer political transition.

The International Stabilization Force Is an Important Test

One of the most consequential elements of Trump’s plan is the proposed International Stabilization Force, or ISF.

The Board of Peace roadmap assigns the force a monitoring and support role rather than direct civilian policing. It would help separate Israeli forces from areas transferred to Palestinian control, monitor ceasefire compliance, support humanitarian operations and train Palestinian police.

The United States has already committed funding to the initiative. Reuters reported on August 19 that Washington had allocated more than $206 million to support the proposed force, including funds for infrastructure, equipment and operations. The funding represents practical progress, but it does not solve the political disagreement over when and how the force should become responsible for security.

This is where the difference between a diplomatic roadmap and an operating security arrangement becomes important.

A force can be funded on paper, but its effectiveness depends on troop contributions, rules of engagement, coordination with Israel and Palestinian authorities, and the willingness of armed groups to accept the new security structure.

The Board of Peace therefore faces a difficult implementation test: building an arrangement that is credible enough for Israel while also being accepted by Palestinians and regional states.

Regional Mediators Are Trying to Prevent the Process From Collapsing

Egypt, Qatar and Turkey have remained heavily involved in efforts to preserve the ceasefire framework. Their recent criticism of Israeli strikes shows that they are increasingly worried that continued military operations could undermine the diplomatic process altogether.

These countries have different relationships with Israel, Hamas and Washington, but they share an interest in preventing another prolonged cycle of war.

Their role could become even more important if the Board of Peace cannot persuade Israel and Hamas to resolve the sequencing dispute directly. Regional mediators can potentially offer guarantees, verification mechanisms and channels that neither side fully trusts the other to provide.

The challenge is that mediation cannot substitute indefinitely for political decisions by the main parties. Ultimately, Israel must decide whether the proposed security architecture is sufficient to permit withdrawal, while Hamas must determine whether it is prepared to accept a process that removes its military capacity.

What Happens Next Could Determine Whether the Roadmap Survives

The most promising scenario would be a modified sequence that allows limited security or humanitarian steps to begin while giving Israel stronger verification guarantees. Such an arrangement could prevent the talks from becoming trapped in an all-or-nothing dispute over which side must move first.

A second possibility is a prolonged diplomatic stalemate. The Board of Peace could continue working groups and preparatory projects while Israeli forces remain in place and Hamas disarmament remains incomplete. That would keep the framework technically alive without producing the political breakthrough needed for a broader transition.

A more serious deterioration could follow if continued strikes, failed negotiations or new security incidents cause the ceasefire framework to unravel. The mediating countries have already warned that the current level of violence threatens the broader process.

For civilians in Gaza, the difference between these scenarios is substantial. A functioning transition could allow more consistent humanitarian access, civilian administration and eventual reconstruction. A prolonged deadlock would leave those goals dependent on a ceasefire that remains vulnerable to renewed military action.

Conclusion

Trump’s Board of Peace is still trying to preserve its Gaza roadmap, but the diplomatic landscape has changed since the initial optimism surrounding the proposal. Israel has rejected the idea of withdrawing before Hamas is fully disarmed, Hamas continues to insist that Israeli military activity and territorial control must change, and recent strikes have increased concern among mediators that the ceasefire process could deteriorate.

The Board’s strategy is increasingly centered on verification, staged implementation and international security mechanisms rather than an immediate withdrawal. That may offer a path for addressing Israeli security concerns, but it has not yet resolved the fundamental sequencing dispute.

The next decisive test will be whether the Board of Peace can translate its roadmap into a sequence of verifiable actions that both sides accept. Until that happens, the Gaza withdrawal plan remains politically alive but operationally stalled, with humanitarian conditions and renewed violence adding urgency to an already difficult negotiation.

Search This Blog

The American Times News | Economy, Geopolitics, Calculators