Efforts to secure lasting peace in Gaza are once again facing a major hurdle, with the latest disagreement centred on who should verify Hamas’ disarmament and determine whether the parties are meeting their commitments. The dispute highlights a problem that has followed several Gaza agreements since early 2025: the absence of a mutually accepted system for enforcing the terms.
Highlights
- A 15-point Gaza roadmap proposed phased Israeli withdrawal alongside Hamas disarmament.
- Israel rejected the original arrangement before US-led discussions produced a revised approach.
- Earlier Gaza agreements lacked a clear mechanism for determining and enforcing breaches.
- The latest proposal shifts disarmament verification towards an American-led process.
- Analysts argue that any lasting deal needs an agreed independent arbiter and clear breach procedures.
Main Story
Disarmament at the Centre of the Dispute
A new US-backed roadmap for Gaza has put Hamas’ weapons at the heart of negotiations, but disagreements over how disarmament should be verified are threatening to complicate the process.
The 15-point plan released by President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace in late July proposed that Hamas surrender its weapons to a Palestinian technocratic body, with an international verification mechanism certifying progress before the next stages could begin.
The proposal also envisaged Israeli forces withdrawing from Gaza in phases.
However, after Israel rejected the arrangement on August 9, negotiations took another direction.
US envoy Jared Kushner subsequently held discussions with Hamas representatives in Egypt before travelling to Jerusalem. The revised approach reportedly considered placing the weapons handover under the supervision of an American general.
That change has raised questions about whether the latest arrangement can overcome the same implementation problems that affected previous Gaza agreements.
The Enforcement Problem
A recurring weakness in the Gaza ceasefire process has been the absence of a clearly agreed authority to determine when either side has violated an agreement.
The University of Edinburgh’s Peace Agreement Database recorded four agreements connected to the Gaza ceasefire process in 2025.
These included the January ceasefire arrangement, agreements reached in October and a United Nations resolution adopted in November.
The deals covered issues such as hostage and prisoner exchanges, military movements and the establishment of transitional arrangements for Gaza.
However, they did not fully establish who would determine whether a violation had occurred, how disputes would be resolved or what would happen after a breach.
January Deal Struggled to Survive
The January 2025 ceasefire contained detailed provisions covering hostage and prisoner exchanges, Israeli troop movements and the return of displaced Palestinians.
The United States, Egypt and Qatar served as guarantors and were expected to support continued negotiations.
But the follow-up arrangements were not fully embedded in the agreement itself, limiting the guarantors’ ability to enforce its provisions.
When the first phase ended on March 1 without agreement on the next stage, the ceasefire eventually collapsed.
Israel resumed its military campaign in Gaza on March 18, further exposing the difficulties of sustaining an agreement without a robust enforcement mechanism.
October Agreements Attempted a Reset
Two agreements reached in October sought to revive the process and address some of the weaknesses of the earlier arrangement.
One element was the establishment of a US Central Command-backed coordination centre in Israel to assist with humanitarian operations and monitor the ceasefire.
Despite the new structure, significant disagreements remained.
Aid organisations and UN personnel continued to raise concerns over restrictions on humanitarian assistance, while questions surrounding Gaza’s future administration and security remained unresolved.
Trump Declaration and UN Resolution
The so-called Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity was signed on October 13 by the leaders of the United States, Egypt, Qatar and Turkey.
The declaration outlined broad principles covering peace, security, human rights, religious tolerance and regional dialogue.
Neither Israel nor Hamas signed the document.
The United Nations later adopted a resolution endorsing Trump’s comprehensive Gaza peace plan and creating the Board of Peace as part of a proposed transitional structure for Gaza.
The resolution also established a framework for reconstruction and referred to a potential path towards Palestinian self-determination and statehood.
However, questions remained over who would decide whether the required reforms and reconstruction milestones had been sufficiently achieved.
Who Decides When the Conditions Are Met?
That question has now returned to the centre of the latest negotiations.
The July roadmap attempted to address the problem by proposing an international verification committee that would confirm whether each side had fulfilled its obligations before the next phase could begin.
But the process has since shifted.
The proposed Israeli withdrawal has been linked more closely to the complete disarmament of Hamas, while responsibility for verifying the weapons handover has reportedly moved towards an American general.
That change could make the process more dependent on a single party rather than a mechanism acceptable to all sides.
What a Sustainable Deal Would Need
For the latest peace effort to succeed, there will need to be agreement not only on what each side must do, but also on who has the authority to determine whether those obligations have been met.
A workable arrangement would require a trusted arbiter, clearly defined procedures for handling violations and a process for restarting negotiations after a breach.
Regional guarantors such as Egypt and Qatar could also play a role in such a framework, given their involvement in previous negotiations.
Beyond security and disarmament, the future governance of Gaza remains another major issue.
A lasting settlement would need to give Palestinians a meaningful role in determining how Gaza is governed while providing a credible political path forward.
Without that wider framework, even an agreement on weapons and troop withdrawals could struggle to produce lasting stability.
A peace agreement is only as strong as the system built to enforce it and in Gaza, the question of who gets to decide whether the deal is being honoured may be just as important as the deal itself.
