Five challenges facing the new Gaza peace plan

The recent announcement that Hamas has agreed to a plan for implementing the next stages of US President Donald Trump’s Gaza peace initiative represents a potentially significant diplomatic development. If successfully implemented, the agreement could lead to Hamas relinquishing its weapons, an Israeli withdrawal from parts of Gaza, the deployment of an International Stabilization Force, and the assumption of governance by the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG).

However, history is replete with ambitious peace initiatives that failed to meet their goals, and this plan faces at least five major challenges that will determine its ultimate success. The most problematic obstacle could be the verification of Hamas’s disarmament. Hamas possesses a vast arsenal, including rifles, explosives, anti-tank missiles, rockets, drones, intelligence infrastructure, and an extensive tunnel network. The group has demonstrated its ability to rebuild capabilities after successive conflicts, raising questions about who will verify that weapons have actually been surrendered.

The plan envisions an International Verification Committee, but conducting inspections in conflict zones is inherently difficult. Hamas could potentially hide weapons or transfer them to allied terrorist factions. Even if the majority of weapons are surrendered, remaining stockpiles could undermine the entire process. For Israel, verification is likely to be the defining issue.

The sequencing of Israeli withdrawal is another complex challenge, as the agreement links it directly to Hamas’s decommissioning process. Disputes over sequencing have plagued almost every previous Israeli-Palestinian agreement. If Hamas claims Israel has not withdrawn quickly enough, implementation could stall, providing an excuse to create a crisis. Conversely, if Israel believes disarmament is incomplete, it may refuse to redeploy. The plan attempts to address this by requiring both processes to move in parallel under international supervision, but the US will face the difficult task of mediating these potentially conflicting timelines, especially while also focusing on Lebanon and Iran.

Furthermore, the capacity of the NCAG to actually govern Gaza remains a significant question. The committee has spent months preparing, pledging to restore public services, improve humanitarian conditions, and rebuild institutions. However, governing Gaza is far more difficult than administering it on paper, especially given that the territory’s infrastructure has been devastated by years of conflict. The ability of the NCAG to manage electricity, water, and other essential services in such a ravaged environment will be a critical test of the plan's viability.