The US-led Board of Peace has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that an Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza will take place only after the disarmament of Hamas is complete, reversing an earlier commitment to synchronize the two processes.

The directive emerged from a meeting on Monday, August 3, in West Jerusalem between Netanyahu and Nickolay Mladenov, the Board's high representative for Gaza. In a readout posted on X, the Board described the talks as "constructive and detailed" (CNN). According to two people familiar with the meeting who spoke to The Associated Press, Mladenov urged Netanyahu to stop attacks on Gaza during the discussions (Al Jazeera).

The Board of Peace was established by US President Donald Trump in January 2026 to oversee the administration of Gaza following Israel's war there. On July 29, the Board published an announcement titled "Board of Peace Reaches Historic Agreement for the Complete Disarmament of Hamas," stating it had reached an agreement for the complete disarmament of Hamas and all other armed groups in Gaza (boardofpeace.org).

Initially, the Board said the Israeli military's withdrawal from Gaza and Hamas's disarmament would be synchronized. After its top officials met with Netanyahu, the Board changed course. It now states that withdrawal of Israeli forces beyond what it calls the Yellow Line — the demarcation line behind which Israeli forces continue to base themselves in Gaza — will take place only once decommissioning is complete. The requirement applies to light weapons, heavy weapons, and tunnels alike (Al Jazeera; Times of Israel).

The sequencing reversal has immediate implications for the parties on the ground. Hamas has insisted the deal will not be implemented unless Israel implements its part of the agreement. Netanyahu's office, before the meeting, said the publicly available version of the agreement does not reflect Israel's positions and that its concerns had been communicated to the United States. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich went further, saying the agreement was "completely different to the one the Israeli government had approved" and demanding a new vote immediately (Al Jazeera).

The volte-face on sequencing effectively grants Israel a veto over the timetable of its own withdrawal, since the Board now conditions that withdrawal on a disarmament process whose pace and verification Hamas does not control. For Hamas, the original synchronization clause was likely the political cover needed to sell decommissioning to its own ranks. Stripping it removes that leverage. Whether Hamas proceeds with any handover of weapons under the revised framework is an open question, and the group's statement that it will not implement the deal absent Israeli compliance signals that the arrangement may stall at the first hurdle.

On the Israeli side, the Board's reversal addresses pressure from within Netanyahu's coalition. Smotrich's demand for a new vote indicates that at least some faction leaders believe the published agreement exceeds what the cabinet authorized. The Board's reassurance to Israel, reported by Le Monde, appears designed to shore up Israeli buy-in even as it risks alienating the other party to the deal.

The mediator bloc of Egypt, Qatar, and Turkiye issued a joint statement condemning Israel's targeting of civilians and healthcare facilities as a "flagrant violation of international law." Their intervention matters not only diplomatically but operationally: these three states brokered the disarmament agreement, and their continued willingness to press Hamas toward compliance depends on their reading of whether Israel is honoring its obligations.

The human cost continues to mount. Israel has killed more than 73,000 Palestinians in Gaza since the war began in October 2023, according to the article. Since an October 2025 ceasefire, more than 1,200 Palestinians have been killed, including more than 36 after the disarmament deal was announced on July 31, 2026 (Al Jazeera).

Those post-deal deaths are particularly consequential. They occurred after the Board announced what it called a historic agreement, and they directly test the credibility of the framework. If violence persists after a deal is publicly celebrated, the parties being asked to disarm and withdraw have reason to question whether either side is acting in good faith. Mladenov's reported urging of Netanyahu to stop attacks, disclosed by sources to the AP, suggests the Board itself recognizes that continued military operations undercut the political process it is tasked with administering.

The Board of Peace now faces a structural problem. It has moved from a synchronized formula, in which both parties moved simultaneously, to a sequential one, in which Hamas must act first with no guarantee of reciprocal Israeli compliance. Sequential disarmament frameworks are difficult to sustain in any conflict; they require extraordinary trust between parties that have none, and a guarantor with the leverage to enforce both sides' obligations. The Board, created by executive authority in Washington, has not yet demonstrated it possesses that leverage. Its ability to hold the Yellow Line as an incentive, rather than a permanent Israeli foothold, will depend on verification mechanisms and enforcement tools that have not yet been detailed.