Gaza Peace Plan

SITUATIONAL SUMMARY

The Trump administration is advancing a comprehensive Gaza peace plan centered on the gradual disarmament of Hamas and the establishment of international oversight mechanisms. According to February 11, 2026 reporting from Turkish sources citing The New York Times, the U.S. draft plan would initially allow Hamas to retain "some small weapons" while requiring the surrender of "all weapons capable of striking Israel." This represents a pragmatic compromise in what officials describe as a "phased disarmament that could take months or longer to complete."

The plan operates through a three-tier governance structure: a Peace Council chaired by Trump himself, a Peace Management Board, and a Gaza Management Committee led by Palestinian technocrat Ali Shaas. Former UN Middle East envoy Nickolay Mladenov has been appointed as the Peace Council's Director-General, serving as the on-ground representative. Turkish President Erdoğan has been invited as a founding member of the Peace Council, which is scheduled to hold its first leaders' meeting and donor conference on February 19, 2026, in Washington.

The framework builds on an October 9, 2025 ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, with the second phase launching on January 14, 2026. However, significant tensions persist. Hamas foreign affairs chief Khalid Meshaal stated in Doha that while Hamas wants to retain its weapons, it doesn't plan to use them "in the near future," declaring "as long as there is occupation, there is resistance." Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, meeting with Mladenov on January 8, emphasized that "Hamas and Gaza must be disarmed" according to Trump's framework.

RAND Corporation Israel expert Shira Efron warned that disarmament is "the cornerstone of everything," cautioning that failure could result in "two Gazas, one run by Israel and the other by Hamas, or a return to full-scale war." The plan's success hinges on this fundamental contradiction between Hamas's stated intention to retain weapons and Israel's demand for complete disarmament.

HISTORICAL PARALLELS

The Good Friday Agreement and IRA Decommissioning (1998-2005): The Northern Ireland peace process offers the closest historical parallel to the current Gaza disarmament challenge. Like Hamas today, the IRA initially resisted complete disarmament while engaging in peace negotiations. The Good Friday Agreement established a phased approach where paramilitary groups would "decommission" weapons over time under international supervision, led by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. The process took seven years to complete, with the IRA finally decommissioning all weapons in 2005. The parallel is striking: both situations involve armed groups that view their weapons as essential to their identity and legitimacy, while opposing parties demand complete disarmament as a precondition for lasting peace. However, the parallel breaks down in that the IRA operated within a democratic framework where Sinn Féin could participate in elections, while Hamas faces an existential threat to its governance of Gaza.

The Dayton Accords and Bosnia's Post-War Governance (1995-present): The international oversight structure being established in Gaza mirrors the complex governance arrangements created for post-war Bosnia. The Dayton Accords established the Office of the High Representative (OHR) with sweeping powers to oversee implementation, similar to Mladenov's role as Peace Council Director-General. Both situations feature international bodies with authority over local governance, donor conferences for reconstruction, and the challenge of managing competing ethnic/national groups. The Bosnian precedent suggests that international oversight can maintain stability but often becomes entrenched, with the OHR still operating 30 years later. The key difference is that Bosnia's warring parties had largely exhausted themselves militarily, while Hamas retains significant capabilities and popular support.

The Oslo Accords and Palestinian Authority Establishment (1993-2000): The current plan's creation of a Palestinian technocratic government under Ali Shaas echoes the Oslo process's establishment of the Palestinian Authority. Both involve international recognition of Palestinian self-governance, phased implementation, and the promise of eventual statehood. However, the Oslo process ultimately collapsed due to continued violence, settlement expansion, and the failure to resolve final status issues. The current situation differs in that it emerges from Hamas's military defeat rather than mutual recognition, and includes unprecedented international oversight mechanisms that didn't exist in the 1990s.

SCENARIO ANALYSIS

MOST LIKELY: Prolonged International Trusteeship with Partial Disarmament

*Key Claim*: By December 2026, Hamas will have surrendered its heavy weapons and rocket capabilities while retaining small arms, with the Peace Council establishing a semi-permanent international administration in Gaza.

*Forecast Horizon*: Medium-term (3-12 months)

*Key Indicators*: (1) Hamas begins surrendering rocket stockpiles and manufacturing facilities by April 2026; (2) International forces deploy to Gaza by summer 2026; (3) The February 19 donor conference raises substantial reconstruction funds; (4) Ali Shaas's technocratic government gains control over basic services; (5) Netanyahu accepts partial disarmament as sufficient for continued ceasefire.

*Consequences*: This scenario would create a stable but indefinite international protectorate, similar to Bosnia or Kosovo. Gaza would receive significant reconstruction aid but remain under external oversight. Hamas would transform into a political movement while retaining some security capabilities, potentially leading to future tensions. Regional powers like Turkey and Egypt would gain influence through the Peace Council, while Israel maintains security control over Gaza's borders.

MODERATELY LIKELY: Gradual Transition to Palestinian Authority Control

*Key Claim*: By early 2027, the Palestinian Authority will assume full administrative control of Gaza with Hamas integrated into a reformed PA structure, while international forces maintain security oversight.

*Forecast Horizon*: Long-term (1-3 years)

*Key Indicators*: (1) PA President Abbas agrees to Hamas integration by mid-2026; (2) Joint PA-Hamas security forces begin operating by late 2026; (3) Israel agrees to PA control over Gaza crossings; (4) International community provides security guarantees to Israel; (5) Hamas formally renounces violence and accepts two-state solution.

*Consequences*: This would represent the most comprehensive resolution, potentially reviving the two-state solution and providing a pathway to Palestinian statehood. However, it requires unprecedented cooperation between Fatah and Hamas, Israeli acceptance of PA governance, and sustained international commitment. Success could transform the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while failure could discredit moderate Palestinian leadership permanently.

LEAST LIKELY BUT SIGNIFICANT: Return to Armed Conflict

*Key Claim*: By September 2026, the disarmament process will collapse, leading to renewed military confrontation between Israel and Hamas that destroys the peace framework entirely.

*Forecast Horizon*: Short-term (1-3 months)

*Key Indicators*: (1) Hamas refuses to surrender heavy weapons by the established deadline; (2) Israeli military operations resume in Gaza; (3) The Peace Council suspends operations; (4) Regional powers withdraw support for the peace process; (5) Significant civilian casualties undermine international backing.

*Consequences*: A return to conflict would devastate Gaza's population, undermine Trump's Middle East credibility, and potentially trigger a broader regional war involving Iran's proxy network. The failure would discredit international mediation efforts and likely lead to permanent Israeli occupation of Gaza. This scenario would also damage U.S. relationships with Turkey and other Peace Council members, while strengthening Iran's position in the region.

KEY TAKEAWAY

The Gaza peace plan represents an ambitious attempt to resolve one of the world's most intractable conflicts through international trusteeship and gradual disarmament, but its success depends on Hamas accepting a fundamental transformation from armed resistance to political participation—a transition that has succeeded in Northern Ireland but failed in numerous other contexts. The plan's innovative three-tier governance structure and Trump's personal involvement provide unprecedented international backing, yet the core contradiction between Hamas's determination to retain weapons and Israel's demand for complete disarmament suggests that even success may produce a prolonged international protectorate rather than a definitive resolution.