Across Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon, agreements and understandings reached through months of diplomacy have faced a common challenge: turning commitments made in negotiations into actions on the ground.
That gap was underscored on Sunday when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected a 15-point plan for Gaza proposed by the Board of Peace, saying that Israel would not withdraw from territory it occupies in the Gaza Strip until Hamas is fully disarmed.
“I want to be precise: Israel rejects the 15-point document,” Netanyahu said, reiterating his rejection of the plan.
Mediated by regional and international actors, the agreements were intended to reduce the fighting, address humanitarian concerns, and establish frameworks for longer-term stability. But implementation has repeatedly become the most difficult stage, with disputes emerging over timelines, obligations, and the responsibilities of each side.
For civilians living amid prolonged conflict, the difference between an agreement being signed and an agreement being implemented has become increasingly significant, determining whether diplomacy can produce lasting relief or only temporary pauses in the violence.
“We haven’t seen any real change on the ground. The killings continue, people are still mourning their dead, the crossings remain closed, and we haven’t seen any political change since the ceasefire was announced in October 2025. Even the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza has not entered Gaza,” said Hala Al-Zaeem, 30, a Gaza City resident.
In Gaza, disagreements over the ceasefire terms, humanitarian access, and post-war arrangements have continued to shape the trajectory of the conflict. Months after the UN Security Council endorsed a broad framework for ending the war in Gaza, Israel’s security cabinet has only approved a limited pilot project allowing foreign security forces to enter a small area of the devastated territory.
The move represents a narrowly defined step towards the post-war arrangements envisioned by the international negotiators, but it falls well short of the broader plan.
Palestinian political analyst Sufian Abu Zayda, speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly in Cairo, said the main challenge now was turning the roadmap into concrete steps on the ground.
“Reaching a peace agreement is difficult enough, but implementing what has been agreed is even harder,” Abu Zayda said, pointing to the more than three months of negotiations that preceded Hamas’ acceptance of the roadmap proposed by the Board of Peace.
Details that emerged in late July indicated that the International Stabilisation Force (ISF) envisioned in US President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan would initially deploy about 200 personnel from countries including Morocco and Uganda to a designated “test zone” in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip.
The deployment would be a limited pilot rather than the full-scale stabilisation force originally envisioned.
“The International Stabilisation Force envisioned under the plan has fallen short of expectations. The force was initially expected to number in the thousands, but only a limited number of countries have committed personnel, many in relatively small numbers,” Abu Zayda said.
The proposed ISF is expected to operate in coordination with the Israeli military. The Israeli media have reported that the government also intends to retain military control over the area up to the so-called “Yellow Line”, a boundary established during the war that would leave a significant portion of the Gaza Strip under Israeli control.
Israel has said its forces will not fully withdraw until Hamas has disarmed, believing that the ISF will not be capable of filling the security vacuum left by an Israeli withdrawal.
The framework endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2803 called for an international force to be deployed alongside the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), a transitional Palestinian administration.
On 6 July, Hamas announced that it would dissolve its governing body in Gaza and transfer civilian administrative responsibilities to the NCAG. But the latter has yet to enter the Gaza Strip and remains based in Cairo.
Preparations for the new security arrangements appear to be moving forward. The Israeli media recently broadcast a video showing a military base under construction near the Karem Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom) crossing in southern Israel close to the Gaza border. According to the reports, the facility is being built to accommodate multinational forces before their deployment to Gaza.
Meanwhile, sources in Gaza said a new site near Al-Ezba at the southern end of the Al-Mawasi area of Rafah has been illuminated at night for the past two days. They also reported bulldozers operating in the Al-Shakoush area for more than a week, with floodlights used at night.
Several other sites have been under construction for about a week in western Rafah and near Hill 86 east of Deir Al-Balah, the sources said. They could not determine whether the sites were intended for the deployment of the ISF.
The developments in Gaza underscore the widening gap between the commitments made in ceasefire agreements and the reality on the ground. While preparations for the post-war framework are underway, key questions over the international forces, civilian administration, and Israel’s military withdrawal remain unresolved.
“The only guarantor of the continuation of this process, preventing its collapse, and ensuring the implementation of the roadmap, is Trump,” Abu Zayda said, arguing that the plan is closely identified with Trump himself, and any failure would be seen as his.
WEST BANK: Beyond Gaza, the occupied West Bank is also seeing an expansion of Israeli military activity, with Israeli forces maintaining a presence inside the Jenin, Tulkarm, and Nur Shams refugee camps and preparing for further operations.
“We have reached a point where the distinctions between areas A, B, and C are becoming meaningless,” Abu Zayda said, referring to the three zones established under the Oslo Accords.
The Israeli military has deployed 26 battalions across the West Bank, according to Palestinian officials, as military operations have been accompanied by changes to roads, restrictions on Palestinian movement, and continued settlement and outpost expansion.
In the same context, the escalation has also fuelled clashes between Palestinians, Israeli forces, and settlers. Abu Zayda said the surge in settler violence in the West Bank was the product of a deliberate government policy rather than a spontaneous development.
On 24 July, armed Israeli settlers entered an area under Palestinian Authority (PA) control near the town of Tell southwest of Nablus, according to Palestinian officials. The incident ended with four Palestinians being killed as well as two Israeli soldiers. Palestinian residents said the settlers had attempted to enter homes in the town.
Abu Zayda pointed to Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s role in overseeing parts of the West Bank administration, saying he had used his authority to facilitate settlement expansion.
“Smotrich has used his position to advance the interests of the settlers and the settlement movement,” Abu Zayda said. “He has removed many of the bureaucratic obstacles that previously stood in the way of settlement expansion.”
Between 28 July and 3 August, demolitions displaced 22 Palestinians and affected more than 100 others, while settler attacks caused injuries and damage to homes, vehicles, and agricultural property, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
Movement restrictions in the Jenin, Tulkarm, and Nur Shams refugee camps have also left more than 33,000 displaced Palestinians unable to return to their homes.
LEBANON: A similar gap has emerged in Lebanon, where a ceasefire agreement has yet to end the hostilities or resolve disputes over Israel’s continued military presence.
Abu Zayda said the US and Israel were pursuing different objectives in Lebanon. “Washington is seeking to strengthen the Lebanese government and help it establish a single authority, a single law, and a state monopoly on weapons,” he said.
Lebanese officials have described recent US-mediated talks with Israel in Rome as making “positive progress”, with the latest round focusing on the implementation of the 26 June framework agreed on in Washington, including border demarcation, prisoner exchanges, ceasefire arrangements, and “pilot zones” for the phased deployment of the Lebanese army.
The talks have continued alongside Israeli air strikes and clashes in southern Lebanon. Israel has accused the Iran-backed Hizbullah group of violating the ceasefire, while some residents have begun returning to areas following the withdrawal of Israeli forces.
The difficulties in implementing the framework were highlighted by an Israeli incursion into Zawtar Al-Gharbiyah, according to Lebanon’s official National News Agency. The agency reported that an Israeli force entered the town and built a new earthen berm (barrier) near its main square.
Zawtar Al-Gharbiyah is one of the areas designated as a “pilot zone” under the 26 June framework, which calls for the Lebanese army to assume control of designated areas as Israeli forces withdraw. Lebanese army forces were deployed in the town on 21 July, according to Lebanese officials.
The date for another round of talks in Rome in September has yet to be confirmed. The Lebanese delegation has presented its conditions, leaving it to Israel to decide whether to advance the negotiations.
For now, the agreements on Gaza and Lebanon have produced important commitments, but little has changed on the ground. Their implementation remains tied to difficult questions over security, territory, and governance, while continued Israeli military activity continues to test the fragile arrangements.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 13 August, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly.
Short link: