NextFin News - U.S. President Trump’s "Board of Peace" has formally presented Hamas with a detailed 20-point proposal to disarm in the Gaza Strip, a move that marks the most significant attempt to date to implement the fragile ceasefire agreement signed last October. The plan, detailed by Board of Peace Director General Nickolay Mladenov, envisions an eight-month, multi-phase transition that would see the militant group surrender its heavy weaponry and destroy its extensive tunnel network in exchange for amnesty and a gradual Israeli military withdrawal to the territory’s perimeters.
The proposal is the centerpiece of a broader U.S.-led effort to stabilize Gaza after two years of devastating conflict. Under the terms of the document, a newly established Palestinian national committee would assume administrative control of the enclave, operating under a mandate of "one authority, one law, and one weapon." The first three months of the timeline focus on the collection of high-grade explosives and long-range rockets, followed by a verification period overseen by a multinational monitoring committee. If these benchmarks are met, the plan calls for a surge in humanitarian aid and the commencement of large-scale reconstruction projects funded by international donors.
Robert Danin, a former senior U.S. State Department official and Middle East specialist, noted that while the proposal offers a clear roadmap, Hamas is unlikely to provide a swift or affirmative response. Danin, who has long maintained a cautious stance on the feasibility of rapid demilitarization in the region, suggested that the group views its remaining arsenal as its only leverage against both Israel and the transitional governing body. His assessment reflects a broader skepticism among regional analysts who argue that the "amnesty for arms" trade-off may not be sufficient to convince Hamas’s military wing to relinquish its core identity.
The economic stakes of the proposal are substantial. The Trump administration has linked the release of billions of dollars in reconstruction funds to the successful disarmament of all militant factions in Gaza. For the territory’s two million residents, the plan represents a potential end to the blockade and a return to basic functionality; however, the Board of Peace has yet to clarify the exact sources of these funds or the mechanism for their distribution. Critics of the plan point out that without a guaranteed, long-term financial commitment from Gulf allies, the "targeted investments" promised by U.S. mediators may remain theoretical.
From a security perspective, the plan faces the immense challenge of verifying the destruction of the "Metro" tunnel system. Israeli officials have expressed private reservations about the eight-month timeline, arguing that a premature withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) could allow Hamas to re-arm through clandestine maritime routes. Conversely, Palestinian negotiators have warned that any delay in the Israeli withdrawal beyond the agreed-upon phases could collapse the entire process, as it would be seen as a violation of the October ceasefire terms.
The current proposal is less a "market consensus" and more a high-stakes opening gambit in a negotiation where the margin for error is razor-thin. While the U.S. administration is pushing for a rapid resolution to showcase a foreign policy victory, the reality on the ground remains dictated by deep-seated mistrust. The success of the Mladenov plan hinges on the unprecedented assumption that Hamas will prioritize political survival and economic integration over its foundational commitment to armed resistance, a shift that has not yet been evidenced by the group’s internal deliberations.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
