Gaza’s roadmap meets Lebanon’s reality: What comes first, Israel’s withdrawal or disarmament?

Report by Wissam Nasrallah, English adaptation by Karine Keuchkerian

From Gaza to Lebanon, the names of plans, committees and map lines change, but the core dilemma remains the same: Who moves first? Israel through withdrawal, or the armed groups through giving up their weapons?

On Sunday night, Hamas officially announced its approval of the roadmap for the second phase of U.S. President Donald Trump’s Gaza ceasefire plan.

This phase was preceded by the first phase in October 2025, which included a halt to military operations, Israel’s withdrawal to the Yellow Line, the entry of humanitarian aid, and a detainee exchange.

Washington later announced the launch of the second phase, saying it would move the agreement toward the more difficult issues: the governance of Gaza, disarmament, withdrawal and reconstruction. The phase remained without an implementation mechanism for nearly seven months.

Under the new roadmap, Hamas and the factions would hand over the civilian and security administration of the Strip to a national committee, placing Gaza under the principle of a single authority, a single law and a single armed force.

Heavy weapons and faction weaponry would be decommissioned and stored under the committee’s authority, while tunnels, weapons depots and military manufacturing sites would be dismantled. An international force would then deploy to separate Israeli forces from Palestinian areas.

For every verified step achieved on the weapons issue, Israel would gradually withdraw, with reconstruction beginning at a later stage.

But this is where the real problem begins. Hamas is demanding a halt to attacks and a return to the Yellow Line, followed by the implementation of a simultaneous formula: a step on weapons in exchange for a step on withdrawal.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, is insisting on the removal of all weapons and the destruction of tunnels before any withdrawal or reconstruction takes place.

Following Netanyahu’s meeting with Jared Kushner, Hamas says it remains committed to what was agreed upon, despite Israel not having given mediators explicit approval of the roadmap so far.

Several questions remain unresolved: Who defines the imminent threat that Israel reserves the right to strike? Who will participate in the verification committee? When will the new administration enter Gaza? And who will fund reconstruction estimated to cost more than $70 billion?

The scene appears familiar in Lebanon.

The framework agreement signed by Lebanon, Israel and the United States on June 26 follows a similar formula: placing weapons under state control, dismantling Hezbollah’s military infrastructure, deploying the Lebanese army, a gradual Israeli withdrawal, followed by the return of residents and reconstruction.

But the difference is significant:

In Gaza, the armed movement itself approved the roadmap. In Lebanon, the state and Israel signed an agreement without Hezbollah, which refuses to discuss its weapons before an Israeli withdrawal.

In Gaza, authority would be transferred to a transitional Palestinian administration and an international force. In Lebanon, the army and state already exist, with the stated goal being to restore the state’s monopoly over weapons, end the state of war and ultimately reach a peace agreement between the two countries.

Yet both plans reach the same obstacle: There is no final timetable for withdrawal, no agreement on the body responsible for verifying disarmament, and each side is demanding that the other take the first step.

More importantly, Israel appears less concerned in both cases with reaching a swift agreement or committing to one, given its military advantage.

Hamas’ approval has therefore shifted the ball into Israel’s court, but it has not yet launched the second phase.

In Lebanon, the state signed while Hezbollah rejected the agreement. In Gaza, the movement agreed while Israel retained freedom of military action and tied withdrawal to disarmament.

As for peace, it remains stuck on the first question: Who goes first?