Gaza disarmament: Eight months, phased withdrawal

A multi-stage proposal has set out an eight-month pathway for disarming Hamas and other Palestinian armed factions in Gaza, tying each step to parallel actions by Israel under an October ceasefire framework.

The document was submitted by Nickolay Mladenov in his capacity as Director General of the Board of Peace, and its details were published on March 26, 2026. The plan describes a reciprocal structure: weapons removal by Palestinian groups would proceed alongside Israeli measures related to humanitarian access and reconstruction.

How the sequence is designed to work

The opening stage is set to last two weeks and calls for a full halt to military activity by both Israel and Hamas. It also requires humanitarian protocols to be put into effect during that same period.

In that initial window, representatives of a technocratic Palestinian national committee would enter Gaza. The proposal says this committee would take on security and administrative duties, positioning it as the central governing authority for the territory.

Disarmament steps and linked reconstruction measures

The next phase runs from day 16 through day 60 and begins the disarmament process. Under the plan, Hamas and other groups would remove heavy weapons and eliminate their tunnel network by day 90.

At the same time, Israel would allow the building of temporary prefabricated housing units. The proposal also links progress on disarmament to increased humanitarian aid and the entry of reconstruction materials into Gaza.

Withdrawal conditions and monitoring

If the obligations in the first three months are met, Israeli forces would start a phased pullback toward Gaza’s edges. That movement would depend on a monitoring committee confirming that Palestinian factions have been disarmed as required.

The plan assigns the collection of weapons to security forces operating under the Palestinian national committee. It anticipates that this collection effort would be completed by day 251.

End-state goals, and what remains unclear

On successful completion, Israel would withdraw from Gaza while maintaining a security perimeter that the proposal does not define. Full-scale rebuilding would then be permitted, including the removal of limits on so-called dual-use materials.

Several operational details are not specified in the published outline, including the exact composition and mandate of the monitoring body and the parameters of the proposed security perimeter. The plan’s feasibility also depends on synchronized compliance by multiple parties over a tight timetable, creating implementation risk if verification or sequencing breaks down.