President Trump posted on Truth Social late Thursday that the Board of Peace has reached a framework agreement for the phased “complete” disarmament of Hamas, which has been designated by the United States and the European Union as a terrorist organization, and other armed groups in Gaza, calling it a “major milestone” in his 20-Point Plan. He thanked Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey as mediators, and praised his own team for pulling off something “everybody said could never be achieved.
By Friday morning, Israel still not said a word.
The Board of Peace and the International Stabilization Force separately confirmed a 15-point roadmap described as the product of “months of intensive, good-faith negotiations” in Cairo among negotiators from Egypt, Qatar and Turkey. The mechanics are more conditional than Trump’s post suggested.
Within 14 days of all parties formally accepting the deal, a weapons inventory schedule must be drawn up, with extensions only via an international verification commission. Heavy weaponry, production sites, depots and Hamas’ tunnel network are targeted first.
Israeli withdrawal is tied step-by-step to verified disarmament progress, not to a fixed calendar. The sole body authorized to hold, store or control weapons in Gaza would be the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza; weapons go to that committee and to international mediators, never to Israel.
A senior State Department official told MBN the agreement is the centerpiece of Washington’s regional strategy.
“The agreement represents a historic step,” the official said. “After months of negotiations, we now have a real roadmap for Hamas’s demilitarization and Israeli military withdrawal. This is the cornerstone of the President’s 20-Point Plan for the Middle East, and it demonstrates that the Board of Peace can deliver security outcomes where traditional multilateral bodies have struggled.”
Nickolay Mladenov, the Board’s High Representative for Gaza, struck a more cautious tone than Trump. “What the agreement says matters,” Mladenov wrote. “What happens in the next matters even more. Implementation and verification have to be real. Withdrawal must move in lockstep with decommissioning.”
Why Now
The disarmament question has been the central obstacle of the Gaza ceasefire since May, when Mladenov said the truce was “paralyzed” over this exact issue.
Hamas’s acceptance was confirmed by senior official Ghazi Hamad, reported by German Channel DW, but came with an explicit condition: “Hamas will not implement any step of the Gaza peace deal if the Israeli occupation forces do not fulfill their obligations under the agreement.”
For Trump, a signed disarmament framework is the cornerstone of his broader Middle East strategy ahead of U.S. midterm elections. A senior U.S. official warned Trump would be “very disappointed” if Israel blocks the plan’s advancement.
Israel’s Silence
The New York Times and CNN both noted “no immediate response” from Israel to Trump’s announcement, leaving real uncertainty about whether Jerusalem agreed to anything. Netanyahu himself has not commented publicly on Hamas’s acceptance.
Behind the silence is active rejection. An Israeli diplomatic source told JNS that the 15-point roadmap “does not fully address Jerusalem’s demand for Hamas’s complete demilitarization before any IDF withdrawal,” and that Israel would not withdraw from the “Yellow Line” dividing Gaza until disarmament is fully completed. A senior Israeli official told reporters Friday there would be “no IDF withdrawal from the current Yellow Line without the genuine disarmament of Hamas.”
Notably, a separate Israeli source also told JNS that Gaza was not even raised in Netanyahu’s meeting with Trump earlier this week. Instead, Israel conveyed its objections to Tony Blair, who sits on the Board’s Executive Board, a signal of factional lines even within the Board’s own leadership structure.
The State Department official pushed back directly on Israel’s posture, telling MBN: “These talks were carried out in coordination with Israel. We understand that some Israeli leaders have doubts that Hamas will actually disarm, and so do we. But the framework is clear, the verification mechanisms are in place, and Hamas has signed on. Now they must deliver. We are not asking Israel to do anything other than agree to the 20-point plan they initially agreed to. We are very confident they will adhere to it. Israel’s security concerns have been addressed in this framework, and the withdrawal timeline is conditional on verified compliance. That is the deal. Now we need to see it implemented.”
The political context inside Israel tells a different story. With national elections scheduled for October 2026, Netanyahu faces intense pressure from coalition partners. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir publicly called the agreement “not acceptable to Israel,” asserting that targeted assassinations must continue alongside efforts to encourage Palestinian emigration. Since the original ceasefire, Israel has unilaterally expanded its territorial control in Gaza from 53 percent to over 60 percent, without pushback from the Board.
The Turkey Problem
Israel’s reluctance to endorse the framework is related to Turkey’s role in the proposed 20,000-soldier International Stabilization Force.
Turkish officials have said a roughly 2,000-troop brigade—combat, engineering, logistics, and explosives-disposal units—is fully prepared and “awaiting orders.” Israel has drawn a hard line.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and government spokespeople have said, “there will be no Turkish boots on the ground.” Netanyahu has called it a personal “red line,” citing Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s ties to Hamas.
Israel went further, asking the Trump administration to remove Erdoğan entirely from the Board of Peace’s executive structure.
Trump, by contrast, has publicly praised Turkish involvement as “a good thing” and called Erdoğan “a good friend,” an open U.S.-Israel divergence with direct consequences.
Countries including Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Pakistan and Indonesia have held back from committing troops partly because Turkey’s status remains unresolved. The UAE cited a lack of a clear framework in declining to participate “for now.”
Turkish judicial authorities compounded the friction by issuing arrest warrants for 37 Israeli political and military leaders, including Netanyahu, accusing them of war crimes. Israel and Turkey have since cut trade and closed airspace to each other.
Divisions Inside the Board Itself
The Board of Peace is not a unified institution. Reporting reveals friction on multiple levels.
Mladenov’s public insistence that “implementation and verification have to be real” reads as an implicit pushback against Trump’s celebratory framing, signaling internal skepticism about the pace of execution.
Israel has objected to the Board’s original composition, including Tony Blair, Jared Kushner and Turkish-linked officials, arguing they were chosen without Israeli coordination.
Trump announced a historic agreement. Hamas accepted it, conditionally. Israel has neither confirmed nor rejected it. The stabilization force that would enforce it lacks its most capable potential contributor. The body overseeing it has no Palestinian political representation, no transferred reconstruction funds, and a governance structure that concentrates all final authority in one man.
What the agreement says is one thing; what happens next is another. The gap is where Gaza’s future is being decided.
