Unspoken terms threaten the ceasefire agreement
Hamas has signaled a willingness to engage with elements of a peace framework proposed by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It has accepted key concessions—agreeing to release remaining Israeli captives and to consider administration of Gaza by a technocratic panel. Yet, crucial questions remain unanswered, and those gaps could scuttle the deal before it fully takes hold.
A governance model that sidelines Palestinian voices
The plan envisages a transitional governance phase in Gaza led by a “technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee.” While designed to stabilize services for a traumatized population, the proposal also raises red flags: the committee would include international experts, potentially diluting genuine Palestinian decision-making power. Details about who sits on the committee, how it is formed, and how many seats would be Palestinian are still murky.
Additionally, a new international body called the “Board of Peace” would oversee the committee’s work and the reconstruction process. The board, reportedly headed by Trump and potentially including figures like Tony Blair, is not explicit about Palestinian inclusion. If Palestinians feel marginalised, trust in the process—and any eventual outcome—could erode rapidly.
Ambiguity around elections and real sovereignty
Key questions loom about a future Palestinian Authority (PA) and the pathway to elections. Important uncertainties include timelines for PA elections, whether Gazans will be eligible to vote, which factions may run, and who screens candidates. The plan leaves these decisions unsettled, inviting divergent interpretations that could empower external actors over Palestinians’ political fate.
One senior Hamas official rejected the idea of non-Palestinian control, underscoring a core challenge: the plan risks removing agency from Palestinians at a moment they demand self-determination and political legitimacy for any governing structure, including one that aims to represent Gazans’ rights.
Palestinian public sentiment and the politics of resistance
Recent polling highlights a crucial obstacle: many Palestinians oppose disarming Hamas and expelling it from Gaza. A May survey showed Hamas leading with 32% support in the Occupied Territories, with Fatah at 21%. Most respondents favoured a unity government that included multiple factions rather than a binary Hamas-versus-PA scenario. There is also a strong expectation that any credible path to rebuilding Gaza must include resistance to occupation as part of its political legitimacy.
This gap between the plan’s “Board of Peace” vision and the political reality on the ground complicates implementation. Even among those who want a negotiated end to the war, confidence in externally imposed governance structures without Palestinian consensus remains fragile.
Netanyahu’s and Trump’s leverage—and its limits
Netanyahu’s remarks hint at a dual objective: end the war and preserve Israel’s security architecture while dismantling Hamas’ military influence. Yet his public stance appears at odds with the plan’s possible embrace of a standalone PA-led Gaza, which could perpetuate a political divide between Gaza and the West Bank. If the administration does not guarantee that Palestinians can participate meaningfully in shaping Gaza’s future, the deal risks being perceived as externally scripted rather than domestically legitimate.
What happens next? Practical hurdles and human costs
Even if the ceasefire holds, the transition could unfold over an indeterminate period, controlled by a technocratic apparatus with limited direct Palestinian accountability. The long timeline, coupled with fragile political endorsement, risks postponing Gaza’s urgent needs—rebuilding homes, restoring basic services, and reviving livelihoods—while political winds shift in Washington, Jerusalem, and abroad.
In the end, the plan’s success will hinge on granting Palestinians real agency. Without clear paths to elections, inclusive governance, and genuine Palestinian leadership in the reconstruction process, the ceasefire might deliver temporary calm at the expense of lasting peace.
