Mike Baker

Time and again, ceasefires have given the group breathing room, only for it to rearm, reorganize, and reassert control once international attention fades.

That's not clever analysis, it's just simple pattern recognition.

Supporters of the new plan argue that international oversight and regional involvement and reconstruction incentives could change the equation, could.

Egypt, Qatar, and other regional players are reportedly involved in shaping the framework, and the Palestinian Authority has signaled support for reconnecting Gaza's governance to the West Bank.

Of course, the Palestinian Authority has very little, if any, credibility or support in Gaza, so that would be considered a problem.

Regardless, none of that resolves a fundamental security question, who actually controls the ground?

A technocratic panel can manage aid distribution and infrastructure on paper, but if Hamas retains its weapons, tunnels, and command structure, real authority will remain exactly where it has been.

In that scenario, a transitional government risks becoming a facade, civilian in name but operating under the shadow of armed militants.

And you can count on a total of, let's see, zero regional governments willing to put their troops or personnel into Gaza if Hamas refuses to disarm.

Well, I suppose maybe Turkey, but they're supportive of Hamas.

And then again, Turkey would be a non-starter for Israel.

There's also the issue of enforcement.

The plan does not clearly spell out how Hamas would be compelled to disarm, what happens if it refuses, or who would intervene if the transition collapses.

Without clear consequences, disarmament becomes more of an aspiration than realistic policy.

For Israel, this ambiguity is existential.

For regional partners, it's destabilizing, and for Washington, it's a familiar dilemma – how to support post-conflict governance without empowering the very actors responsible for the conflict in the first place.

To be clear, the idea of moving Gaza towards civilian rule is not new, and it's not inherently flawed.

Gaza can't remain locked in perpetual war with Israel, but any serious plan has to grapple honestly with Hamas as it exists, not as diplomats wish it would behave.

For now, this announcement lays out a framework, but not an outcome.

And until Hamas demonstrably gives up its weapons and its grip on Gaza, any talk of a true transition should be treated with pessimism.