Israeli officials and regional experts are expressing deep skepticism over the Trump administration’s newly unveiled Gaza disarmament roadmap, warning that public disagreements between Israel and Hamas over the timing of weapon surrenders and troop withdrawals threaten to unravel the agreement before it even begins.

On Thursday, President Donald Trump announced that the Board of Peace had reached an agreement for the “complete disarmament of Hamas and all other armed groups” in Gaza. 

The text of the deal, which was released on Friday by the Board of Peace, indicates that the process will be carried out over three years, and requires that Israel immediately end all military operations in the Gaza Strip — and eventually withdraw completely from the enclave following the decommissioning of Hamas’ weapons. The process is supposed to be monitored and supported by an International Verification Committee (IVC) and the temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF). 

Under the proposed “roadmap”, all weapons in the enclave would be strictly under the control of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) — a newly established Palestinian technocratic government under the Board of Peace. Officials indicated that Hamas would first relinquish its heavy weapons, military production sites and tunnel infrastructure, after which a Palestinian police force — to be trained by the ISF — would handle internal security, taking over from Hamas. 

U.S. and Board of Peace officials said that Israel would withdraw from the strip once Hamas’ decommissioning of weapons is completed. But a senior Hamas official told Al Jazeera that the group will not take any action prior to an Israeli withdrawal. The official text notes that both the disarmament and withdrawal would occur in phases timed upon the completion of each objective.

Trump said at a Cabinet meeting on Friday that the deal is a “big step for the Middle East.” The president did not comment on whether Hamas disarmament or Israeli withdrawal would occur first; however, he credited U.S. operations against Iran with helping make the agreement possible.

“It’s a great breakthrough. Nobody ever thought that would be possible to disarm Hamas. That shows you how much success we’re having with Iran because if you go four months ago, five months ago, a deal like that would have been impossible,” Trump said. “Israel is very happy about it. Israel helped us, and they’ve been very good.”

The announcement appears to mark progress in Trump’s Gaza peace plan, but some officials and experts are already expressing skepticism and concern before the plan has yet to take off. 

Doron Spielman, a spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office, told Jewish Insider that Jerusalem conveyed to Washington that the plan “does not reflect Israel’s concerns.” 

“Israel’s security concerns in Gaza boil down to one key item, which is that in order for anything to move forward, Hamas has to absolutely and truly disarm completely, and without that as a precondition, Israel is not able to take any steps that would enable Hamas to gain forward positions, get closer to the people of Israel,” Spielman said. “Over the last eight months, Hamas has had ample time to show that they were serious about the 20-point agreement, which they violated every single day by not relinquishing their weapons.”

Spielman said that Israeli intelligence has shown that Hamas “has been regrouping, digging additional tunnels, rearming and resupplying and have plans to attack Israel again.” For that reason, he said it is difficult for Israeli leaders to justify any decision to withdraw prior to Hamas’ complete disarmament. 

“We’ve conveyed our concerns to the Americans, and we know that President Trump has our best interests in mind,” Spielman said. “At this time we want to present to him the very clear information we have that Hamas is not serious, that Hamas is playing games and it’s time for the games to end.” 

Steven Cook, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told JI that he is “skeptical” that the plan will be “durable” given the already public disagreements between Hamas and Israel over whether the terrorist group’s decommissioning of weapons or the IDF withdrawal will come first. 

“Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad has already said that Hamas is not actually going to disarm, says Hamas isn’t going to hand over weapons, and rejects any Israeli involvement … Hamas has said the agreement is contingent on Israelis withdrawal, but the Israelis won’t withdraw until Hamas disarms … That does not seem like a good start,” Cook said. 

“Assuming that Hamad is just posturing, the agreement calls for storing Hamas weapons, which one assumes could easily be taken out of storage,” he continued. “My sense is that the agreement will falter because Hamas and its supporters will litigate what decommissioning means, what storage means, and what Hamas commitments are in relation to Israeli actions.”

Cook said that the logistical hurdles surrounding the plan’s enforcement present another vulnerability, as the mechanism for holding Hamas accountable relies on entities that currently lack real enforcement power on the ground.

“Then, of course, is the question of the NCAG — a group of technocrats — with no independent power. It is unclear to me how they will be empowered to keep Hamas’ weapons,” he said. “Finally, why would Hamas give the Board of Peace its map of tunnels and weapons production facilities?”

Matthew Levitt, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, warned that the Board of Peace and the NCAG must enforce a total decommissioning of weapons if the agreement is to hold.

“It all comes down to Hamas weapons — does this plan involve a Hamas agreement to actually allow the decommissioning of Hamas weapons, or is Hamas still only willing to talk about a scheme under which its weapons are just stored away by the NCAG, available to be used another day?” Levitt said. 

Daniel Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel under former President Barack Obama, offered a more pragmatic assessment, calling the plan a “worthy effort” and the “best chance” to create a path forward despite the formidable hurdles ahead.

“It lays out a detailed, verified sequence in which Hamas’ disarmament, the arrival of Palestinian technocratic governance supported by international forces, and Israeli withdrawal are supposed to occur,” Shapiro said in a statement to JI, noting that the fundamental challenge will lie in the plan’s execution.

“Hamas has a long history of seeming to reach agreements, to which they then add multiple caveats,” Shapiro added. “Israel is extremely skeptical of Hamas’ intentions, and will drag its feet on commitments to withdraw if it sees any shortfalls.”

Shapiro also pointed out that the NCAG has yet to prove its authority, while an international force “will take months to recruit, train and deploy.” Still, he stressed that despite these obstacles, the framework remains the most viable option available.

“This is all very difficult, but it is the best chance for removing Hamas from Gaza so it can no longer threaten Israel, and allowing Palestinian civilians there to recover and rebuild,” Shapiro said. “We should all hope it succeeds.”

Rachel Brandenburg, a senior policy analyst at the Israel Policy Forum, said that while the roadmap “reflects progress” in getting Hamas to agree “for the first time” to concrete steps on disarmament, “it seems unlikely … that implementation will follow quickly, if at all.”

“First, reportedly Israel was not a party to these negotiations and has not yet agreed to its terms. Second, Hamas is conditioning the beginning of its disarmament process on Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and Israel is conditioning the beginning of withdrawal on Hamas being disarmed,” Brandenburg said. “So far these conditions are still incompatible.”

Brandenburg added that geopolitical and domestic political pressures make significant near-term compromises unlikely for either leadership.

“Third, I am dubious that Hamas will make any real concessions before they see where the chips fall in the Iran war, and that [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu will make any concessions related to Gaza before the Oct. 27 Israeli elections,” she continued. “I commend the negotiators for reaching this agreement, but view it more as another layer of planning for eventual progress in the overall 20-point plan, than a reflection of either party moving closer to actual compromise.”