Introduction: A fragile agreement on a razor’s edge
As ceasefire talks resume in Egypt, there is a growing chorus that the latest plan from US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could finally end Israel’s war on Gaza. Yet the messages Hamas has signaled—and what remains unsaid—raise serious questions about whether a durable peace can take root. The conflict’s future hinges not just on the assurances being offered, but on the governance model, Palestinian agency, and the timing of any pause in fighting.
The heart of the plan: temporary governance, lasting questions
The plan reportedly envisions Gaza under a transitional administration run by a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee charged with delivering essential services. It also proposes a new international body, the “Board of Peace,” headed by figures like the former British prime minister, with a mandate to oversee the committee and steer Gaza’s reconstruction until the Palestinian Authority (PA) can reassert control. The crux: what happens to Palestinian political leadership in Gaza and how Palestinians themselves decide their future?
Who seats on the technocratic committee?
Hamas has accepted some components but rejected disarmament and full withdrawal from Palestinian politics. The committee’s composition remains undefined: who would be Palestinian? how many members would represent Gaza’s diverse factions? Without clear answers, the plan risks producing a body that lacks legitimacy in Gazan eyes and potentially undermines any future sovereignty.
What about the Board of Peace?
The plan assigns oversight to an international body that could include prominent but external figures. A senior Hamas official has already rejected any arrangement in which non-Palestinians effectively control Palestinian fate. The absence of guaranteed Palestinian representation on the Board—and clarity on the process for PA reforms—limits the plan’s credibility among Gazans and other Palestinians who see leadership as a key element of national rights.
<h2 Palestinian agency and legitimacy: core to any lasting deal
For many Palestinians, the most troubling gap is the sense that the plan curtails political choice. It posits a future Gaza where local governance is subordinated to a Western-backed, international framework, with uncertain pathways to meaningful elections and reforms. Polls from the Occupied Territories show support for a unified Palestinian government that includes multiple factions, not a narrowly defined technocratic body. The data also reveals strong resistance to disarming Hamas and expelling leaders, suggesting that many Gazans want a role for their current representatives in any future state structures.
<h2 Netanyahu’s stance and its implications
Netanyahu’s public remarks align with a broader strategy: dismantling Hamas’ military and political reach while maintaining a divided governance arrangement between Gaza and the West Bank. His statements about a “peaceful civilian administration” not controlled by Hamas or the PA appear to contradict the plan’s aim of a Palestinian-led transition. If the Netanyahu government’s real objective shifts away from Palestinian sovereignty toward a long-term strategic split, the plan could lose legitimacy in the eyes of Gazans and complicate negotiations with Palestinian factions.
<h2 The risk of indefinite timelines and ambiguous safeguards
Even if Hamas signs on to some elements, the absence of concrete timelines for elections, criteria for who can run, and how disarmament would be achieved leaves an open-ended process that can be exploited by shifting political winds in the West or within Gaza itself. The “stability force” concept risks turning over security to external actors with limited accountability to Palestinians, further eroding trust in a process that already faces legitimacy challenges.
<h2 What would need to change for a viable path forward
For a ceasefire to become durable, negotiators should address: clear Palestinian representation on any transitional boards, explicit timelines for elections and reforms, guarantees for civil rights and political participation for all factions, and a credible mechanism to ensure Gaza’s governance is both accountable and legitimate in the eyes of Gazans. Constructive inclusion of Palestinian voices, a transparent timetable, and safeguards against external manipulation are essential to turn a fragile pause into a lasting peace.
Conclusion: a deal with no ambiguity stands the best chance
The current outline offers a blueprint toward an end to hostilities, but its success depends on who governs Gaza, how Palestinians participate in that governance, and how quickly real political reform follows. Without addressing agency and legitimacy, even a ceasefire could become a prelude to renewed conflict.
