PNN – In terms of its substance, the agreement announced regarding Gaza has neither won the approval of the Palestinians nor satisfied the Zionists.
According to the report of Pakistan News Network; the ceasefire agreement for Gaza announced yesterday was not welcomed by either side, yet it reflects the shift brought about by the war.
Observers believe that—given the exhaustion of the Palestinian resistance, the suffering of the people of Gaza, and the fact that the Zionists failed to fully achieve their stated objectives—this agreement appears to be more of a political maneuver than a definitive settlement.
Trump’s Vague and Incomplete Stance on the Gaza Deal
In this context, U.S. President Donald Trump did not wait for the resolution of outstanding issues in the ongoing Cairo negotiations regarding the “second phase” of the Gaza ceasefire agreement before announcing what he described as a “historic deal.”
While Trump focused—based on the agreement—on the “complete disarmament” of Hamas and other “armed groups” in the Gaza Strip, deeming this step a “pivotal” turning point toward achieving “lasting peace and security for Israel and its neighbors,” he failed to address other elements of the roadmap that link the disarmament process to an Israeli withdrawal, the deployment of a “Gaza administration committee” and “international stabilization forces,” and the commencement of reconstruction efforts.
The U.S. President stated that this agreement is “a decisive step toward a new Palestinian government that will assume control of the Gaza Strip” and that this government will work “in close cooperation with the Peace Council to assist the Palestinian people,” while Israel “will gain the security it seeks, and Gaza will no longer serve as a base for terrorist attacks.”
Details of the Roadmap for Finalizing the Gaza Agreement
Meanwhile, the body known as the Peace Council issued a lengthy statement outlining the provisions of the roadmap, which is expected to be signed in the coming days.
According to the statement, this roadmap is based on Trump’s “comprehensive peace initiative,” as endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2803 (2025). The roadmap aims to end the war, ensure Israel’s complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, restore normalcy, empower the Palestinian government, facilitate reconstruction, achieve security, foster economic recovery and development, revitalize damaged sectors, and “facilitate the launch of a credible political process leading to self-rule and statehood.”
According to the terms released by the Peace Council, Israel must fulfill all its remaining obligations—most notably the cessation of military operations—within 14 days of the agreement’s ratification in order to prepare for the transition to the agreement’s “second phase.”
This phase entails the entry of the “National Committee for the Administration of Gaza” and the formation of an international committee to verify the implementation of the disarmament process. The committee will comprise representatives from the Peace Council, guarantor nations, mediators, and the international stabilization force.
The plan also stipulates that the transition from one phase to the next is contingent upon fulfilling the obligations specified for each phase and their validation by an international committee, which will oversee the agreement’s implementation through an advanced monitoring mechanism.
In return, Hamas and resistance groups commit to transferring all civil and security responsibilities in the Gaza Strip to the Gaza Administration Committee. This committee, in turn, will manage civil institutions, including ensuring that all government employees are treated legally, fairly, and with respect regarding their rights.
This process will involve retaining some employees within the committee framework, terminating the service of others, and retiring some, while ensuring their financial entitlements and pension rights in accordance with Palestinian law.
Vague Provisions Regarding the Fate of Resistance Weapons
However, the issue of resistance weapons remains the most sensitive clause of the agreement—a topic that gained traction after Palestinian factions recently demonstrated flexibility regarding the confiscation of weapons, short of full disarmament. Accordingly, the process of collecting weapons is to be carried out through a national decision and by a Palestinian entity, rather than by the occupying power.
Under the proposed formula, weapons were categorized into heavy and individual types, with the “first phase” limited to the cataloging and collection of heavy weaponry.
While neither Palestinian factions nor international mediators have provided a definition for the term “heavy” weapons, the term certainly does not refer to individual firearms or weapons used for self-defense.
The process of cataloging the weapons is scheduled to begin 14 days after the arrival of the “Gaza Administration Committee” and is contingent upon the withdrawal of occupation forces from the areas they have occupied within the Gaza Strip—specifically those known as the “Yellow Line.”
Verifying and Assessing the Feasibility of the Agreement’s Implementation
However, the publication of the agreement’s terms in Hebrew media was met with a wave of ridicule and skepticism, with assertions that the announced conditions were impossible to implement.
Palestinian reactions were similarly marked by skepticism; for instance, the Islamic Jihad movement stated briefly that the agreement was “imprecise” and that they held “reservations regarding its current form.”
For its part, Hamas declared that the actual implementation of the agreement hinges on the occupiers committing to halting the killing and ending their attacks on the Gaza Strip. This step serves as the primary prerequisite for implementing the agreements, including the establishment of an implementation framework and a timeline for its provisions.
The movement emphasized that the transition to the “second phase” remains contingent upon Israel’s full commitment to implementing all provisions of the “first phase.”
Regarding the issue of weaponry, Hamas clarified that the inclusion of heavy arms in the agreement was linked to—and conditional upon—a complete cessation of all forms of aggression, withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, a rapid improvement of conditions in Gaza, the entry of an administrative committee, the deployment of international forces, the disbanding of armed groups and mercenary militias formed by the occupying power, reconstruction, the guarantee of the right to self-determination, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and the protection of citizens’ rights.
Reasons behind the Zionist Negative Reaction to the Roadmap for Finalizing the Ceasefire Agreement
Despite the significant flexibility demonstrated by resistance groups regarding this agreement, its terms still met with a negative reaction from the Zionists; they insisted that such an agreement was unfeasible and had been concluded merely as a political maneuver and a publicity stunt ahead of Israel’s elections.
In this context, Gadi Eisenkot—former Chief of the General Staff of the Zionist army and a prominent Knesset member—stated that any such agreement would face a major test and be measured against the extent to which war objectives are achieved: namely, the destruction of Hamas or the complete elimination of its military and political power. Any outcome short of this would signify a defeat for Israel.
He also criticized the cabinet of Benjamin Netanyahu—Prime Minister of the occupying regime—for failing to disclose details of the aforementioned agreement, questioning whether Israel had been compelled to accept it under current circumstances. For his part, Itamar Ben-Gvir, the Zionist regime’s fascist Minister of National Security, rejected the terms of the agreement, deeming them completely unacceptable.
Alongside these political reactions, a wave of mockery and skepticism swept through Hebrew media regarding the feasibility of implementing the announced terms. Zionist journalist Aryeh Eldad remarked sarcastically: Congratulations! A new peace has arrived in our land. What great joy! I might even attend a celebratory banquet today.
Ron Kaufman, another Zionist journalist and analyst, also spoke on the matter with a mocking tone: Is Hamas supposed to take us on a tour of all its tunnels and show us its weapons? The most likely scenario is that Hamas will hand over a truckload of 372 Kalashnikov rifles, which will then sit in a warehouse—locked up—with the key held by a representative of the Peace Council.
Amidst this criticism, Netanyahu has remained silent and offered no official response; however, a political source in his office stated that without the actual dismantling of Hamas’s weapons, there will be no Israeli army withdrawal from the current ‘yellow line’.
A Tactical Maneuver for the Survival of the Palestinian Resistance
While neither side appears likely to welcome this agreement—which many Gazans view as heralding the end of a genocidal war that has lasted nearly three years—from a realistic and political standpoint, it represents nothing more than a subtle maneuver by the Resistance; a move that has taken even the Israelis by surprise.
This maneuver can perhaps be explained by the constraints of the reality created by the war, which have undermined the ability to resort to resistance in its conventional form for various reasons, including:
– The exacerbation of the suffering of the people of Gaza amidst the ongoing aggression and the oppressive blockade imposed by the Zionist regime on the Strip; any new action by the resistance is met with an escalation of the genocidal war by the Zionist enemy, further worsening the plight of Palestinians in Gaza.
– The absence of the conditions and environment that originally enabled the resistance movement to emerge in the form it took over the past 18 years—most notably Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, Hamas’s control over the Strip, and its access to economic resources, security apparatuses, and public assets, all of which allowed it to establish a resistance movement characterized by a blend of organized and hybrid models within a cohesive hierarchical structure.
– The lack of secure geographic depth for traditional resistance operations. Under current circumstances—given that the Zionist regime occupies 70 percent of the Gaza Strip’s territory and the population is concentrated in less than 30 percent of the area—the Resistance’s ability to conduct field maneuvers and military operations is constrained; the necessary depth for defensive or offensive maneuvers is unavailable in such a situation.
Consequently, under current circumstances, the Resistance is employing nuanced tactics and strategies to manage the situation and ensure its own survival. In this context, some argue that weapons in present-day Gaza serve a merely symbolic role—linked to the legitimacy of the Resistance and the identities of the victor and the vanquished—rather than anything more.
Observers also believe that the Resistance now seeks to utilize its weaponry in a different manner, aiming to expel the Zionist occupiers from Gaza, halt the war, rebuild the territory, secure employee rights, and—above all—prevent a return to the cycle of genocide.
This is a point also emphasized by Basem Naim, a senior leader of the Hamas movement, who stated: what has been achieved is not the ultimate goal of the resistance, but rather the space between preventing a return to war and preserving our strategic project.
As for the Zionists, Netanyahu—beset by a host of domestic and foreign crises—was the last person to desire such an agreement; indeed, the deal in no way validates his narrative of “absolute victory.” His stated objectives—which went unfulfilled—included the total occupation of Gaza, the displacement of its population, the complete political and military destruction of Hamas, and guaranteed security for the settlements surrounding the Strip; anything short of achieving these goals amounts to failure for him.
Therefore, it appears Netanyahu is banking on finding a loophole in Hamas’s non-compliance with the terms of the agreement, enabling him to once again hollow out the deal and return to war.