The U.S. military's recently established Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) in Kiryat Gat hosted a meeting last month in Israel with over 400 officials and members of the business sector. The materials were developed by U.S. security agencies and independent advisors. The discussion was arranged by Lt. Gen. Michael Fenzel, the U.S. security coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
A slide featuring a question mark between "Phase 1" and "Phase 2" of the Trump plan was included in a 67-slide unclassified presentation, according to Politico. This is a visual representation of ambiguity about how the next phases will be implemented.
The presentation featured discussion accoutrements from the Blair Institute, which was created by former British high minister Tony Blair and has been involved in agreement attempts, as well as U.S. government" situation reports" on conditions in Gaza.
The documents emphasize that the United States is still committed to the agreement, but they also punctuate how the public sanguinity raised by Trump and his administration is at odds with the challenges of stabilizing the Gaza Strip and reaching a long- term peace between Israel and Hamas.
Important elements are yet unknown, but the proposal calls for an international stability force to oversee the demilitarization of Gaza and monitor a truce.
There are still concerns regarding the force's composition, deployment site, rules of engagement, legal mandate, and oversight, one presentation suggested that the US would be in charge of the force. The article claims that there is opposition to the Palestinian Authority's engagement in Gaza and that Israel is hesitant to leave the area while Hamas is still armed.
The effort is "a full-time job," according to David Schenker, who was Trump's assistant secretary of state for the Middle East during his first term. He told Politico that the administration's small diplomatic corps might not be adequate for the amount of work needed.
“Divorced from the peace deal is a plan of how to actually implement this peace deal,”
said one of the participants of the symposium.
“Everyone is floating around at 40,000 feet and nobody is talking operations or tactics.”
"Hamas is buying time for eventual reassertion of control,"
according to another confidential document referenced in the presentation.
"Every delay works in their favor,"
the statement says, pointing to risks to security and humanitarian efforts in parts of Gaza that are not controlled by Hamas.
What are the main implementation obstacles cited in Politico's report?
Challenges implementing the multinational stabilization force in Gaza to preserve peace and security, which threatens implementation of the plan. Conflicts over governance, especially regarding the possible inclusion of Palestinian technocrats who will oversee the interim administration, with Hamas apprehensive about completely giving up political and military authority.
Failure to obtain disarmament of Hamas, or guarantees that Hamas will demilitarize sufficiently to satisfy the former by Israel. Difficulties in implementing the ceasefire framework and security arrangements outlined in the ceasefire while regional backers such as Turkey and the UAE are ambivalent. The intricacy of interests in balancing political and security interests in the plan among Israel, Hamas, Palestinian groups, and external actors.
Threat of collapse of the plan if elements of the framework are not realised, resulting in instability or a de facto partition of Gaza instead of peace. circumstances.