Trump’s Board of Peace Is Powerless To Fix the ‘You First’ Problem

Donald Trump revealed his proposed Board of Peace last week, which aimed to bring peace and security to Gaza through a 15-point roadmap. The plan promised Hamas to disarm, Israel to withdraw, and an interim Palestinian administration to take control. The Board of Peace also planned reconstruction and eventual Palestinian self-determination and statehood.

However, vital steps like Israel withdrawing and Hamas disarming were conspicuously absent. Despite the Board of Peace's meticulous approach to address each side's concerns, the plan fails to resolve the immediate issue. Israel will not withdraw if Hamas is still armed, and Hamas will not disarm while Israeli forces remain in Gaza.

Without one side moving, any historic agreement is essentially a bureaucratic shuffle. While the Board of Peace's roadmap is well-thought-out, it remains ineffective until both sides accept it and cease fighting. Netanyahu insists the IDF will stay until Hamas is fully disarmed, whereas Hamas refuses disarmament until Israel withdraws.

If both sides eventually agree on a total ceasefire, the roadmap does not clarify how the phased approach and "lockstep" mechanism would be measured. It merely states that progress between phases relies on the International Verification Committee's confirmation of the previous phase's completion. Critical questions remain unanswered, such as which Israeli units withdraw from which sector and how many Hamas rockets equal one IDF-controlled neighborhood.

The roadmap delegates these details to an implementation timetable that would be ready within 14 days of all parties approving the framework. This lack of clarity further weakens the plan's viability. The Board of Peace's approach is far from foolhardy; it went to great lengths to accommodate each side's concerns. However, Hamas's military infrastructure would be dismantled gradually and time-bound, with an International Verification Committee certifying compliance before moving to the next stage.

An International Stabilization Force would separate Israeli forces from NCAG-controlled areas, train Palestinian police, and uphold the ceasefire. Nickolay Mladenov, the representative for Gaza, described the mechanism as "lockstep" between Israel's withdrawal and Hamas's relinquishing of arms. In theory, this should bridge the gap between the two sides.

However, the plan only works if both sides agree to it and stop fighting. Netanyahu maintains that the IDF will remain in their current positions until Hamas is completely disarmed. Hamas' negotiator, Ghazi Hamad, stated that the group will not disarm until Israel withdraws. Even if both parties somehow agree to another total ceasefire, the roadmap does not explain how its phased approach and "lockstep" mechanism would be measured.

It merely suggests progress is contingent on the International Verification Committee's verification of the previous phase's completion. The specifics of which Israeli units withdraw from which sector and how many Hamas rockets equal one IDF-controlled neighborhood remain unclear. While a rigorous verification process could mitigate ambiguity, it cannot eliminate it entirely.

An Israeli withdrawal from Gaza would be observable, as monitors could track the movement of IDF troops, vehicles, and military posts. Conversely, verifying Hamas's disarmament presents challenges—inspectors might confirm the surrender of 500 rockets but have a harder time ensuring that a 501st does not exist somewhere in Gaza. Israel could argue that one more tunnel or one more weapons cache remains, and Hamas could argue that "complete disarmament" becomes an unattainable standard used to indefinitely postpone an Israeli withdrawal.

Additionally, what if one or both parties reject the findings of the verification committee? Is there an appeal process, or a way to challenge the ruling? Would the ISF have the authority to enforce a disputed ruling? Hamas has strong motivations to reach an agreement. Israeli strikes would cease, troops would withdraw, and Hamas would be relieved of the burdensome responsibility of governing and administering services in a devastated territory.

However, the Board of Peace plan essentially demands Hamas to dismantle itself as Gaza's ruling force. It requires Hamas to surrender its civilian government, security apparatus, and armed power to the NCAG under the principle of "One Authority, One Law, One Weapon." This is a significant concession that Hamas's leaders find unacceptable unless Israel completely withdraws from the Strip.

Netanyahu's political incentives are equally compelling. Israel is set to vote on October 27 to elect a new Knesset, and the prime minister faces a difficult re-election campaign in which national security will be a central issue. Accepting withdrawal before Hamas's complete disarmament would require Netanyahu to retreat from his promise of "total victory."