Expert Warns US‑Backed Gaza Peace Blueprint Stalls Over Core Obstacles

Negotiations aimed at ending the Israel‑Gaza conflict have reached a stalemate this week, with the United States acting as mediator. Amjad Iraqi, senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, told RFI that the US‑backed peace roadmap still leaves several critical issues unresolved.

Although the latest round of disarmament talks between Hamas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stalled on Monday — mediated by US envoy Jared Kushner — the Gaza militant group reaffirmed on Tuesday its adherence to the 15‑point roadmap, which includes a disarmament clause.

On July 31, Hamas stated it would commence disarmament only after Israeli troops withdrew from Gaza.

Israel replied on August 9, asserting that it would not withdraw from Gaza until Hamas is genuinely disarmed.

Both sides had originally accepted the roadmap as part of the Gaza peace plan championed by former President Donald Trump and overseen by his Board of Peace.

The final draft of the plan was released on 29 September of the previous year and took effect on 10 October, initiating a ceasefire. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reports that roughly 1,200 Palestinians have died since then.

Amjad Iraqi discussed with RFI the shortcomings of the roadmap and the measures he deems necessary to achieve disarmament.

Amjad Iraqi: Anyone expecting a breakthrough from the Board of Peace meetings between Hamas and the Israeli government was bound to be deeply disappointed. The roadmap has failed to resolve two fundamental obstacles that have hampered the ceasefire process from its outset.

The first obstacle is the Board of Peace itself. Its diplomatic approach has been inconsistent, often yielding to Israeli positions. It has offered contradictory statements in different negotiation settings, as seen with the roadmap.

Moreover, on Monday Kushner reiterated essentially Israel’s stance that Gaza will not be rebuilt until demilitarisation is achieved.

The second problem is the deadlock over disarmament.

The Board cannot resolve whether Palestinian factions view disarmament as a gradual process tied to Israeli troop withdrawal, or whether Israel — and effectively the United States — demands total disarmament before any reconstruction or aid is permitted.

RFI: You say the Board of Peace is problematic. Could you elaborate?

AI: In Gaza, the Board effectively placed US officials — primarily under President Trump — in supreme authority over decision‑making.

This executive board, comprising figures such as Kushner, Steve Witkoff, and Tony Blair, forms the chain of command, while Palestinian technocrats of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) occupy the lowest tier.

The Board’s vision for Gaza, and its total control of political, diplomatic, and reconstruction processes, has created a protectorate over the Strip. Nothing proceeds without its approval, thereby stifling Gaza’s recovery and denying Palestinians autonomy over their homeland.

Disarmament negotiations are highly delicate and complex, marked by strong, mistrustful positions on both sides, requiring careful handling.

In this context, regional actors — including Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia — have sought to broker a framework. Palestinian factions have signaled willingness to accept it moving forward, despite lingering distrust of Israel.

RFI: We have been using “disarmament,” but also “demilitarisation” and “handing over arms.” Are there any substantive differences or nuances among these terms?

AI: There are clear differences. While the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, their precise meanings are crucial for the technical process and implementation.

Decommissioning weapons — rather than total disarmament — means Hamas and other factions will transfer their arms to the NCAG, a Palestinian entity, under international monitoring, and store them rather than hand them directly to Israel.

In other words, the weapons will not be handed to Israel but will be stored in facilities as part of a longer‑term process to determine their ultimate disposition.

These nuances distinguish decommissioning from a broad concept of disarmament.

Israel is indifferent to such nuances; its government insists on total disarmament, demanding the destruction of all heavy and light weapons, tunnels, and facilities.

Source link