While critics call the sequencing too rigid, the President’s team says the rule is simple weapons first, withdrawal second, no exceptions.

For the first time in decades, a Gaza peace framework is built on something other than trust.

That’s the case supporters of President Trump’s Comprehensive Plan for Gaza are making this week, as his U.S.-led Board of Peace reaffirmed one of the deal’s central pillars: Israeli forces will not withdraw from territory beyond the so-called Yellow Line until Hamas has fully decommissioned its arsenal. “Contrary to inaccurate reports, we note that the withdrawal of the IDF beyond the Yellow Line will take place only once decommissioning is complete, as Hamas committed to the mediators,” the Board said in a statement following a meeting between its high representative, Nickolay Mladenov, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Board was explicit that the requirement covers light weapons, heavy weapons, and Gaza’s extensive tunnel network alike.

To the President’s supporters, that sequencing is the whole point. For years, Middle East peace efforts collapsed because militant groups were allowed to trade vague promises for immediate concessions, only to rearm once the pressure came off. Trump’s framework flips that model: Hamas gets reconstruction, governance transition, and an eventual Israeli withdrawal — but only after its weapons are actually gone, verified by an International Stabilization Force and an Implementation Verification Committee, not just declared gone on paper.

When Trump announced Hamas’s agreement to the disarmament roadmap in late July, he called it “a monumental step toward lasting PEACE and SECURITY.” The deal, finalized with mediators from Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey alongside the U.S., lays out a phased process: Hamas first hands civilian governance to a transitional body, the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, then moves into a “security” phase requiring full disarmament before Israel’s phased withdrawal is completed.

Predictably, the deal has drawn fire from multiple directions — which backers of the plan take as evidence it’s actually balanced rather than a giveaway to either side. Hamas has pushed back on any shift away from the original sequencing it agreed to, and has said it will only hand over heavier weapons once Israeli forces are fully out and a Palestinian state is on the table. On the other side, Netanyahu’s office has said the published version of the agreement “does not reflect Israel’s positions,” and Israeli officials have continued military operations in Gaza even after the disarmament deal was announced, drawing condemnation from Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey as violations of the ceasefire framework. Gaza’s health ministry has reported over a thousand Palestinian deaths since the ceasefire began, a toll that underscores how far this process still is from the “lasting peace” both sides say they want.

To the administration’s critics, that ongoing violence is proof the framework isn’t holding. To the administration’s supporters, it’s proof of exactly why the disarmament-first sequencing matters — that without an enforceable, verified handover of weapons, there is no mechanism to actually stop the cycle before it starts again. Mladenov has said his team is “working around the clock to de-escalate,” and the Board has stressed that continued progress “depends on each side fulfilling its obligations under the agreed framework” — a standard that applies to Jerusalem as much as to Hamas.

What makes this moment different from past Gaza cease-fire attempts, in the eyes of Trump’s supporters, isn’t that the process is smooth. It isn’t. It’s that for the first time, there’s a written, internationally endorsed roadmap — backed by the UN Security Council — with actual verification mechanics attached to each phase, rather than a handshake and a hope. The disarmament roadmap must be finalized within fourteen days of the agreement, with an international body certifying compliance before the next phase begins. That’s a level of structure the region hasn’t had before.

Whether that structure survives contact with the reality on the ground — continued strikes, disputes over sequencing, and deep mistrust between Hamas and Israel — is still an open question, and a fair one. Regional mediators, Israeli hardliners, and Hamas itself all have reasons to want the terms rewritten in their favor before the ink is fully dry. But for an administration that campaigned on ending America’s era of open-ended, resultless Middle East entanglements, the Board of Peace framework is being sold as proof that leverage, verification, and a firm sequencing of demands can do what decades of goodwill diplomacy could not. The next two weeks, as the detailed timeline gets hammered out, will show whether that bet pays off.