U.S. President Donald Trump has urged both Hamas and Israel to act swiftly in advancing his proposed Gaza peace plan. While Hamas has reportedly agreed in part to several key aspects of the initiative and Benjamin Netanyahu has pledged to begin implementing its first stage, a lasting resolution to the Gaza conflict remains elusive. Despite early signs of cooperation, deep divisions over disarmament, governance, and military withdrawal continue to stall progress toward a final agreement.

Partial Acceptance Fuels Tentative Optimism

Hamas’s partial acceptance of certain provisions within Trump’s plan has been viewed by some observers as a modest but meaningful step toward dialogue. The group’s willingness to engage with select elements of the proposal signaled a potential opening for negotiations that had long appeared frozen. However, this limited endorsement stops short of full commitment, leaving critical components unresolved and raising questions about how far both sides are willing to compromise.

Israel’s Initial Implementation Efforts

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed his intention to move forward with the first phase of Trump’s framework. This stage reportedly focuses on establishing conditions for stability in Gaza while laying groundwork for broader political discussions. Yet even as Israel signals readiness to take initial steps, officials remain cautious about security guarantees and the long-term implications of any withdrawal or power-sharing arrangement.

Disarmament Remains a Central Obstacle

One of the most contentious issues preventing consensus is the question of disarmament within Gaza. Israel insists that any sustainable peace must include the dismantling of Hamas’s military capabilities, while Hamas views such demands as undermining its security and political leverage. This standoff over weapons control continues to be a major stumbling block in translating partial agreements into concrete action on the ground.

Governance and Authority Disputes

Beyond security concerns, disagreements persist over who should govern Gaza once hostilities subside. Competing visions for administrative control—whether through local governance structures or broader regional oversight—have complicated talks further. Both sides appear wary of ceding authority or accepting arrangements that could weaken their influence over post-conflict reconstruction and policy direction.

Troop Withdrawal Questions Unresolved

Another critical point of contention involves troop presence and withdrawal timelines. While Trump’s plan outlines phased steps toward reducing military operations in Gaza, neither side has agreed on specific terms or verification mechanisms. The absence of mutual trust continues to hinder progress on this front, leaving uncertainty about how any ceasefire could be maintained or enforced over time.

Despite renewed diplomatic attention and partial gestures from both parties, the path toward enduring peace remains fraught with complexity. Trump’s call for swift action underscores growing impatience with prolonged negotiations but also highlights how entrenched positions have kept key issues unresolved. Until consensus emerges on disarmament, governance, and troop withdrawal, hopes for a comprehensive settlement in Gaza are likely to remain out of reach.