Published on 6/14/2026
The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)’s submission of the unified response of the Palestinian factions to the High Representative of the Peace Council, Nikolai Mladenov, regarding the road map he proposed to proceed with the implementation of US President Donald Trump’s plan for Gaza, revealed a deep fundamental disagreement in the reading of the commitments and the field.
At a time when the factions responded with absolute positivity to obliging Israel to withdraw from the first phase and stop its attacks in exchange for a vision of restricting weapons, the disavowal of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government appears as a “saw knot” for continuing escalation as an ideological and electoral “comfort zone.”
All of this is parallel to an “American narrative” that shifts priorities by making disarmament a precondition for the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the deployment of international stabilization forces.
Palestinian approach
Writer and political analyst Iyad Al-Qara believes that the distance between the factions’ response and Mladenov’s road map seems “fairly close,” noting that the factions responded in a very positive and absolute manner to address Mladenov’s previous remarks and prevent Israel from returning to war.
Regarding the pretext of “disarming the resistance” raised by Israel, Al-Qara explained – during his talk to the program “Beyond the News” – that the factions presented a clear and unanimous vision related to dealing with this file under the title:
- Limiting weapons to one agreed-upon Palestinian party, let it be the “administrative committee” that can manage the Gaza Strip.
Al-Qara confirms that the real problem lies in the Israeli position and procrastination, citing Defense Minister Yisrael Katz’s statements that Israel’s goal is to displace the Palestinians. He stressed that Gaza has turned into a maneuvering card for Israel with its continued field violations, shifting the “yellow line” hundreds of meters toward the west and targeting civilians.
Israel’s position
For his part, the expert on Israeli affairs, Muhammad Halasa, expresses a more pessimistic reading, stressing that Israel will reject the proposal even if it formulates it itself, because it needs to continue the pretext of weapons in this sensitive stage of Israeli political life, and considers the Gaza file to be postponed pending what matters will turn out on the most important fronts, such as the Iranian and Lebanese.
Halsa explains that Israel is moving according to a security consideration that believes that defending the border settlements requires defensive lines outside them (the buffer security zone).
Compromises and arrangements also cost the ruling coalition a great price during an election season, and Netanyahu cannot risk this price as long as it does not cost anything in continuing military control and strikes.
Accordingly, Netanyahu’s “comfort zone” is continued escalation – adds Halsa – pointing out that there is an ideological and doctrinal dimension for the ruling right, represented by a Knesset member presenting a law to cancel the disengagement from the Gaza Strip, paving the way for a return to settlement and displacement, which is part of the official Israeli agenda.
Washington perspective
On the other hand, James Robbins, senior researcher at the American Council on Foreign Policy, presents the American vision based on the transition to reconstruction and investment, considering that the main obstacle is Hamas’ failure to fulfill its obligations under Security Council Resolution 2803, which stipulates that “Gaza will be free of terrorism, that Hamas will not play any role in governance in the future, and that a committee of technocrats will assume daily management.”
Robbins links the Israeli withdrawal to a time frame that is consistent with an international peacekeeping force in accordance with Resolution 2803, stressing that countries are “hesitant to deploy until Hamas disarms because it refuses to risk its forces in a conflict zone.”
According to the senior researcher at the American Council on Foreign Policy, “the presence of armed Hamas is what justifies the Israelis’ continued presence inside the Gaza Strip.”
