Inside Story: Why Israel rejected the Board of Peace's plan for Gaza

“Withdrawal must move in lockstep with decommissioning,” Board of Peace High Representative Nikolay Mladenov stated on July 31, referring to the release of the body’s 15-point Roadmap for Gaza and, specifically, its proposed timetable for an Israeli pullback from the Strip alongside Hamas’s disarmament.

With those words, Mladenov underscored the widening gap between Jerusalem and the international community over how to proceed with ending the war sparked by the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre. Mladenov acknowledged that “it took months of very difficult negotiations to get here. There were several points when I did not believe we would make it.”

U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled a comprehensive proposal on Sept. 29, 2025, to end the conflict. That 20-point proposal became the foundation for United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803, adopted on Nov. 17, 2025.

Article 9 of Trump’s plan called for the creation of an international transitional body, the “Board of Peace,” chaired by the U.S. president, to oversee the process of ending the war.

A day before the BoP released its roadmap, Trump announced that an agreement had been reached with Hamas on the terror group’s complete disarmament, calling it a “major milestone in the implementation” of his 20-point plan.

Even then, divisions were beginning to emerge. An Israeli source told JNS immediately after the announcement that Jerusalem continued to insist on the full demilitarization of Gaza as a precondition for any broader political process.

“There will be no Israeli withdrawal from the [ceasefire] Yellow Line in the Gaza Strip before Hamas disarms,” the source said, adding that Israel had conveyed its objections to aspects of the proposed roadmap through the appropriate channels.

Israeli Settlements and National Missions Minister Orit Strook told JNS in an exclusive interview on Wednesday that the disagreement centers on the roadmap’s lack of guarantees regarding Hamas’s disarmament, guarantees contained in Trump’s original proposal, and its significant differences from that proposal on issues ranging from Gaza’s governance to the prospect of establishing a Palestinian state.

Strook emphasized that Trump’s original 20-point plan stipulated that all weapons in the Gaza Strip would be removed or destroyed, whereas under the Board of Peace’s new roadmap they would instead remain in Palestinian hands.

“All the missiles, weapons, explosives and tunnels will go to this new entity, which is meant to govern in accordance with existing Palestinian law. It will be far worse than with the Palestinian Authority, which does not possess such an arsenal,” she said.

“This roadmap leads to the creation of an entity that supports killing Jews and conducting terror attacks against Israel and is responsible for all the weapons Hamas still holds. It is an existential threat, and it is a shame,” Strook added.

Point 13 of Trump’s 20-point plan outlines his vision for a demilitarized Gaza: “All military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt. There will be a process of demilitarization of Gaza under the supervision of independent monitors, which will include placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning, and supported by an internationally funded buy back and reintegration program all verified by the independent monitors.”

By contrast, Clause 8 of the BoP plan outlines a potentially lengthy process “to decommission and store heavy weapons, military production sites, depots of weapons, and tunnels,” beginning only after the new Palestinian technocratic governing body, the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, begins operating in Gaza and an International Stabilization Force is deployed.

The “decommissioning” process “shall be administered and implemented by NCAG in a gradual, sequential and time-bound manner” and “shall be linked to an Israeli withdrawal, in phases, from the areas under its control in Gaza,” according to the roadmap.

Some undefined “Palestinian factions” are to take part in the process, at the end of which “only NCAG shall hold, store or control weapons in Gaza,” rather than destroying them or removing them from the Strip, under the 15-point plan.

The BoP also links Gaza’s demilitarization to the creation of “appropriate conditions for a credible pathway towards achieving Palestinian self-determination and statehood.”

JNS reached out to the Board of Peace twice for clarification, but had not received a response by press time.

On Aug. 3, four days after Trump’s announcement and three days after the BoP plan was released, Israeli officialdom broke its near-uniform silence.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich posted on X that “the proposal published by the Board of Peace is not the plan presented to us in the [Security] Cabinet and not what we voted on,” referring to the forum’s recent decision to allow the deployment of the ISF in Gaza.

The published outline “does not guarantee the real demilitarization of the Gaza Strip; it allows for an IDF withdrawal before the demilitarization is complete; applies the P.A.’s antisemitic laws in the Gaza Strip; changes the designation of the multinational force so that it will, in fact, limit IDF activity; does not condition the reconstruction of Gaza on demilitarization; and even restores the idea of a Palestinian state as a political goal,” Smotrich wrote.

“A blueprint that contradicts the war goals and the commitments given to Israel cannot be promoted in Gaza. I will not allow such a plan to erase the tremendous achievements of heroic IDF soldiers, achieved with their blood, body and soul,” he added.

The same day, Israeli President Isaac Herzog made clear that the position on disarmament was virtually uniform across the political spectrum, saying implementation of the BoP plan would depend on “the clear caveat and undertaking that Hamas must be disarmed.”

This, he said, “is clearly the basis of moving forward to the next phase by bringing in the government of technocrats,” referring to the NCAG, directly contradicting the timeline outlined by the BoP.

The comments came hours before BoP chief Mladenov met in Jerusalem with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Following the encounter, the BoP released a statement trumpeting that “Israel and the Board of Peace share a common understanding of the ultimate objectives.

“The goal is clear and is not in question: the complete decommissioning of weapons in the Strip and the transition away from rule by the gun to civilian governance,” it added. “Contrary to inaccurate reports, we note that the withdrawal of the IDF beyond the Yellow Line will take place only once decommissioning is complete, as Hamas committed to the mediators. This applies to light weapons, heavy weapons and the tunnels alike.”

While the statement suggested the sides were moving somewhat closer together, Mladenov released his own statement acknowledging that “This is the start of the hard phase and I have never pretended otherwise. Not much of what we do now is dramatic. It is slow, grinding and technical work.”

The next day, Aug. 4, Netanyahu broke his week-long silence on the matter in a video posted to Facebook.

“I am standing firm on our security interests—we will not withdraw from our current lines until Hamas is completely disarmed,” he said, adding that IDF soldiers had been instructed “to do everything necessary to defend themselves, to defend our territory, to defend our citizens.”

The next day, Netanyahu took aim at another issue in the BoP plan, making clear that Jerusalem would not agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state. He made the remarks at a ceremony in Jerusalem marking the reinterment of the grandparents of Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism.

“We will not establish a Palestinian terror state here that we know is aimed at destroying the Jewish nation-state,” the prime minister said. “We understand that they want to destroy us because we promote the values of progress, democracy and freedom, which are hated by the barbarians who seek our souls.”

A senior source told JNS on Thursday that the Cabinet never voted on Trump’s original plan precisely because of widespread opposition to Palestinian statehood.

Netanyahu “accepted the 20-point plan in his personal statement alongside President [Trump],” the senior source said. “There is no official decision by the Israeli government or the Security Cabinet that adopted it. Because of opposition to the clause on a path to a Palestinian state, we did not agree to such an official Israeli decision,” he said.

Nevertheless, the mention of Palestinian statehood in Trump’s plan was considerably more palatable to Jerusalem, appearing only once, in the 19th clause, and framed as a potentiality rather than a fait accompli.

“While Gaza redevelopment advances and when the PA reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people,” it reads.

By contrast, the first point of the BoP’s plan explicitly identifies as an end goal “facilitat[ing] launching a credible political path that achieves self-determination and Statehood.”

Sources also pointed out to JNS that key commitments to Israel contained in Trump’s 20-point plan do not appear in the Board of Peace’s proposal.

For example, Point 1 of Trump’s outline states that “Gaza will be a deradicalized terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbors,” while Point 14 offers a guarantee “to ensure that Hamas, and the factions, comply with their obligations and that New Gaza poses no threat to its neighbors or its people.”

The word “terrorism” does not appear in the BoP plan, which instead repeatedly refers to “militias” and “factions.”

For her part, Strook repeatedly emphasized the BoP document’s references to “Palestinian law,” a term that does not appear anywhere in Trump’s proposal. In her view, this effectively means the NCAG will be a shadow Palestinian Authority, whose legal system she described as the most antisemitic one since Nazi Germany.

“Palestinian law determines that the killing of Jews is not an offense at all. More than that, whoever kills a Jew or an Israeli gets a financial reward. It encourages terror,” she told JNS.

“Despite that, the Board of Peace is now creating an entity that, from the moment it starts governing, will abide by this same law. It’s shocking, and no moral person can agree to this,” she said.

The term appears in Point 6 of the roadmap, which states that “NCAG shall operate in accordance with Palestinian laws, relevant international standards and the principles of good governance.” It is repeated in Points 7 and 9. The latter, concerning armaments, states that “Personal weapons in Gaza shall be subject to the regulations of relevant Palestinian laws.” Point 11 further states that “A Social Peace Agreement shall be signed in accordance with Palestinian norms and laws.”

Netanyahu has reiterated time and again his determined opposition to the Palestinian Authority taking over the Gaza Strip.

“I will not allow us to replace Hamastan with Fatahstan, to replace Khan Yunis with Jenin,” Netanyahu said in December 2023, referring to the southern Gaza city, which was a focal point of Hamas terrorism during the Oct. 7 massacre and ensuing war, and the Palestinian city in northern Samaria, which is also a jihadist hotbed.

“I will not allow the State of Israel to repeat the fateful mistake of Oslo, which brought to the heart of our country and to Gaza the most extreme elements in the Arab world, which are committed to the destruction of the State of Israel and who educate their children to this end,” he added at the time.

Strook also noted a difference between Trump’s 20-point plan and the roadmap with regard to the role of Hamas members in Gaza’s post-war administration.

Point 6 of Trump’s 20-point plan states that “Hamas members who commit to peaceful co-existence and to decommission their weapons will be given amnesty” and that “members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries.” Point 13 further stipulates that “Hamas and other factions agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form.”

However, Point 7 of the roadmap states that “all police personnel shall undergo a comprehensive vetting. Those who do not meet the required standards of vetting shall be offered alternative civilian roles consistent with Palestinian law. None of those shall be deprived of their financial rights, particularly due to political affiliation.”

The dispute over the roadmap came into sharper focus during Thursday’s Security Cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, where IDF Military Intelligence Research Division chief Brig. Gen. Ofir Mizrahi Rosen warned of a Hamas deception.

“Hamas agreed to the 15-point document, but it has not abandoned its vision of destroying Israel,” he was quoted by Israeli media as saying. “There is a clear Hamas effort to kick the ball back to us.”

Shin Bet Director David Zini warned in turn: “The agreement by Hamas is aimed at buying time and ensuring we do not return to operating in Gaza before [Israel’s Oct. 27] elections. It is a strategic ambush.”

Netanyahu also reportedly reiterated the gap between the Trump plan and the BoP document, saying, “We have understandings from November 2025 with the U.S. that contradict this document—the roadmap. We have submitted amendments.”

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir told JNS on Sunday that he welcomed growing opposition to the BoP plan, with the immediate focus being on whether to implement a previous Security Cabinet decision allowing the International Stabilization Force to enter the Strip.

Finance Minister Smotrich changed his position during Thursday night’s Security Cabinet meeting and is now opposing it.

Sources told JNS that the forum’s decision several weeks ago granted the ISF immunity, paving the way for the force to begin operating. However, the government secretary clarified on Thursday that the formal agreement has not yet been signed.

The same senior officials told JNS that the U.S. administration is pressing for the deployment of the ISF as part of a broader move that would also include IDF withdrawals from existing positions, and a cessation of targeted attacks on Hamas terrorists.

“Congratulations to Minister Smotrich, who withdrew his support for the introduction of the International Stabilization Force for Gaza and joins me in firmly opposing this dangerous step,” Ben-Gvir told JNS.

“It was clear from the beginning that no international force would do the job for us in Gaza—only the State of Israel can destroy Hamas,” he added.

Later on Sunday, Netanyahu closed the circle, leaving no doubt on where Israel stands.

“Israel rejects the [Board of Peace’s] 15-point document. The IDF will not carry out any withdrawal until Hamas is disarmed. And when I say Hamas must be disarmed, I mean the heavy weapons, the less heavy weapons, all weapons. We are talking about genuine disarmament, not a fictitious one,” the prime minister said.

Netanyahu noted that Jerusalem is currently discussing the matter with the Americans, adding: “They have ideas, some of which are acceptable to us and some of which are unacceptable.”

“The existence of Israel and the security of all Israeli citizens are nonnegotiable. We stand firm on these interests. We don’t just talk about this in advertising offices; we actually do it on the ground,” Netanyahu continued. “We have proven this all along—when we entered Rafah [in southern Gaza] and secured the Philadelphia Corridor, when we entered Lebanon and eliminated [terror chief Hassan] Nasrallah and the rocket depot there, and when we attacked Iran twice.

“Contrary to all those who preach to us, we do what needs to be done for Israel’s security, and we can and know how to stand our ground—even against our best friends when necessary.”

Get the latest updates in our WhatsApp group.