A new US-backed roadmap for Gaza is facing a major test over one crucial question: who gets to decide whether Hamas has surrendered its weapons and whether the other side has fulfilled its commitments? The latest disagreement reflects a broader weakness that has affected successive Gaza agreements the lack of a clearly agreed system for verifying compliance and resolving breaches.
Highlights
- Trump’s Board of Peace proposed a 15-point roadmap for Gaza in July.
- The original plan called for international verification of Hamas’ disarmament.
- Israel later rejected the arrangement and sought changes to the process.
- Previous Gaza agreements also lacked a strong mechanism for enforcing breaches.
- A lasting deal would require an agreed arbiter and clear rules for handling violations.
Main Story
Disarmament at the Heart of New Dispute
The latest attempt to establish a lasting peace framework in Gaza has run into familiar problems, with the process now focused heavily on how Hamas would surrender its weapons.
The 15-point roadmap released by Donald Trump’s Board of Peace in late July proposed that Hamas hand over its weapons to a committee made up of Palestinian technocrats.
An international verification body would then certify that the relevant obligations had been met before the next stage of the agreement could proceed.
The plan also envisioned Israeli forces leaving Gaza in phases.
However, Israel rejected the proposal on August 9, setting the stage for another round of negotiations.
US envoy Jared Kushner subsequently travelled to Egypt, where he met Hamas representatives, before heading to Jerusalem.
The proposed arrangement later shifted towards having an American general supervise the weapons handover.
That change has revived concerns about whether the latest framework has a sufficiently independent and mutually acceptable verification system.
A Problem That Has Followed Earlier Deals
The dispute is not entirely new.
According to the University of Edinburgh’s Peace Agreement Database, four agreements were connected to the Gaza ceasefire process in 2025.
The arrangements dealt with issues including hostage and prisoner exchanges and the creation of transitional structures for Gaza.
But a recurring weakness was the absence of detailed procedures for determining when an agreement had been violated.
There were also questions about who would adjudicate disputes and what steps should follow after a breach.
January Ceasefire Eventually Collapsed
The January 2025 agreement contained detailed provisions covering the release of hostages and prisoners, Israeli troop movements and the return of displaced Palestinians.
The United States, Egypt and Qatar acted as guarantors and were expected to support continued negotiations.
However, the agreement did not give those guarantors a comprehensive enforcement role.
When the first phase ended on March 1 without a clear agreement on the next stage, the process became increasingly fragile.
Israel resumed its military campaign in Gaza on March 18, exposing the difficulties of maintaining a ceasefire when there is no mutually accepted mechanism for dealing with disagreements.
October Deals Attempted to Close the Gap
Two agreements reached in October sought to restart the process and address some of the shortcomings of the earlier arrangement.
A coordination centre operated by US Central Command was established in Israel to help coordinate humanitarian assistance and monitor the ceasefire.
However, significant challenges remained.
Humanitarian organisations and UN personnel continued to raise concerns about restrictions on aid, while disagreements over Gaza’s future governance and security remained unresolved.
Trump Declaration Left Major Questions
The Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity was signed on October 13 by the leaders of the United States, Egypt, Qatar and Turkey.
It outlined broad commitments relating to security, human rights, religious tolerance and regional cooperation.
Israel and Hamas, however, were not signatories.
While guarantor states can endorse agreements that the parties themselves do not sign, the arrangement still left unanswered questions about how those principles would be enforced on the ground.
UN Resolution Created New Framework
A November United Nations resolution represented another major step in the diplomatic process.
It endorsed Trump’s comprehensive Gaza peace plan and established the Board of Peace as the head of a proposed transitional structure for the territory.
The resolution also created a framework for Gaza’s economic reconstruction and referred to Palestinian self-determination and potential statehood.
But another verification problem remained.
Progress towards Palestinian statehood was linked to reforms within the Palestinian Authority and advances in Gaza’s reconstruction, without clearly identifying who would determine whether those conditions had been sufficiently met.
Latest Roadmap Tries to Fix the Problem
The 15-point roadmap attempted to address some of these weaknesses by proposing an international verification committee.
Under that arrangement, progress by both sides would be independently certified before the process moved to its next stage.
But the subsequent changes have complicated that approach.
The proposed phased Israeli withdrawal has been tied more closely to the complete disarmament of Hamas, while verification of the weapons handover has shifted towards an American-led process.
That has placed renewed focus on whether both sides would trust the body responsible for deciding whether the conditions have been met.
What Would Make the Deal Work?
For a Gaza peace agreement to have a realistic chance of lasting, negotiators will need to settle the enforcement question before implementation begins.
That means agreeing on an arbiter acceptable to both sides, defining what constitutes a breach and establishing what happens when one party is found to have violated the agreement.
Regional guarantors such as Egypt and Qatar could also have a role in that mechanism, given their involvement in previous negotiations.
Beyond disarmament and troop withdrawals, the future governance of Gaza remains equally important.
Any durable settlement would need to give Palestinians a meaningful role in the territory’s political future while providing a credible path towards reconstruction, stability and self-determination.
Without that wider political framework, resolving the immediate dispute over weapons may only postpone the next disagreement.
A peace agreement can set out what both sides must do, but lasting peace depends on something even more fundamental: agreeing on who decides when those promises have been kept.
