A proposal presented through a US backed “Board of Peace” framework has outlined a phased plan calling for the disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza, placing the initiative within a broader effort to reshape governance and security arrangements in the enclave. The plan, attributed to Director General Nickolay Mladenov, proposes an eight month process tied to reconstruction and administrative transition.
According to details of the proposal, the plan begins with a short term ceasefire and humanitarian measures, followed by gradual disarmament steps. These include the removal of heavy weapons, dismantling of tunnels, and later the collection or registration of small arms. In parallel, Israel would allow limited reconstruction measures and eventually withdraw forces in stages, contingent on verification of compliance.
The initiative has been framed by its proponents as a pathway toward stabilization and reconstruction after extensive destruction in Gaza. However, Palestinian analysts and political observers have expressed skepticism, arguing that the sequencing places primary obligations on Palestinian factions while leaving key Israeli commitments less clearly defined. Concerns have been raised about the absence of firm guarantees regarding a full cessation of military operations or a complete withdrawal.
Observers following regional discussions note that similar proposals in the past have struggled due to asymmetry in expectations between the parties. Linking humanitarian reconstruction to disarmament has been described by some analysts as a high risk approach, particularly in a context where trust between the sides remains extremely limited and past agreements have faced implementation challenges.
Hamas has repeatedly stated that it will not consider disarmament while Israeli forces remain present in Gaza, maintaining that the issue of weapons is tied to broader questions of occupation, sovereignty, and internal Palestinian consensus. The group has also indicated that any discussion on security arrangements would depend on the full implementation of ceasefire terms, including unrestricted humanitarian access.
The proposal emerges at a time when Gaza continues to face severe humanitarian conditions, with widespread displacement and infrastructure damage. As discussions continue, it remains unclear whether the outlined framework can bridge the deep political and security divides between the parties. The outcome will likely depend on whether parallel commitments, enforcement mechanisms, and broader regional dynamics align to support implementation.
