An Israeli airstrike killed two Palestinians near a bakery in Deir Al-Balah in the central Gaza Strip on Sunday, according to Gaza health officials and medics. The dead were identified as Hussam Nusair and Tayyem Hamdan, a three-year-old boy. Several others were wounded. The strike added to the toll of the war in Gaza as Israeli forces continued almost daily attacks in the enclave.
The State's Monopoly
The bakery hit in Deir Al-Balah sits inside a war zone shaped by competing systems of control, and the reporting around Gaza made that plain without much ceremony. Israeli forces kept up near-daily attacks. Hamas kept hold of governance. Civilians stayed trapped between them. The article said the territory’s crisis has never been only a security or humanitarian problem, but also a political and governance problem. That’s the polite version of a system where armed institutions decide who gets to move, eat, work, or leave.
The same coverage said the National Committee is made up of independent Palestinian professionals whose purpose is to govern during the transition and restore effective administration. It said the transition would be judged not by the structures established but by whether Palestinians experience greater security, more reliable services and a measurable improvement in daily life. Nice words. The machinery still has to work through armed control, donor oversight, and a political order built from the top down.
No weapons have been decommissioned so far, and Hamas has not handed over governance. The reporting said Hamas continues to control the lives of 2 million people in Gaza, that civilians have no way to leave the Hamas-controlled area because the rest of Gaza is either controlled by the IDF or has active armed militias, and that there is nowhere for civilians to go if they do not want to live under Hamas rule. The IDF, for its part, will not withdraw unless all of Hamas’s weapons are collected. So the population waits while armed authorities trade conditions and deadlines over their heads.
The NGO Mirage
The US-backed Gaza Peace Plan emerged in late September 2025 when President Donald Trump unveiled a 20-point framework designed to end the war in Gaza and create a roadmap for long-term stability. The plan was endorsed by the UN Security Council in Resolution 2803 on November 17, 2025, following a ceasefire that began in October 2025. The framework sought to halt fighting and establish a new political, security and economic order in Gaza under international supervision.
That order comes with committees, boards, and verification rituals. Hamas was supposed to be replaced with a new technocratic National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, or NCAG, run by Palestinians. There was supposed to be a police force and security for ordinary people, disarmament was going to happen, and investment for reconstruction would follow. The Board of Peace would oversee implementation, coordinate donor funding and verify compliance with the agreement. The language is managerial. The reality is still armed rule, just with better stationery.
The US Ambassador to the UN, Mike Waltz, posted on X/Twitter on August 28 that he had met with Board of Peace High Representative Nikolay Mladenov. Waltz said, “He is a key partner in the work to secure Gaza’s future, rid Hamas of its weapons, restore basic governance under a Committee of Palestinian technocrats, and build a real foundation for stability in the Middle East.” He also said, “Remember the Security Council’s pledge: Gaza cannot sustainably rebuild while Hamas retains the ability to plunge it back into war. We will be frozen in a cycle of humanitarian aid rather than rebuilding until Hamas disarms and demilitarizes.” He added, “For the first time in modern history, a new future for Gaza without war or terrorist overlords is credibly in reach. To get there, we all must implement the 15-point plan for Hamas to disarm.”
Mladenov was quoted as saying the peace process can only move forward after an International Stabilization Force is deployed and that Hamas also has to adhere to its commitments. The reporting said Israel also has commitments under the 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum. It said Hamas has to disarm, meaning every category of weapon in Gaza has to be decommissioned, and that only after that happens will Israel redeploy or withdraw forces. These steps are supposed to happen in phases that are performance-based and verified along the way. The people living under the arrangement get phases. The armed institutions get leverage.
Who Gets to Decide
The same coverage said Mladenov wrote in early August that “two days of strikes across Gaza have killed civilians and destroyed medical supplies that people depend on. This comes after intense efforts by the Board of Peace and the mediators (Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, and the US) to bring the Palestinian factions in Gaza to agree to a roadmap on the full implementation of President Donald Trump’s plan, to hand over civilian governance and to decommission their weapons.” He said, “Both parties carry obligations under the Comprehensive Plan and the Sharm el-Sheikh deal that secured the release of all hostages.”
Burundi and Uganda had sent personnel to Israel to discuss deploying as part of the International Stabilization Force, and Albania and Kosovo had done so several months earlier. Not many troops had actually arrived for the force. Mladenov wrote, “My team and I are working around the clock with the parties, the mediators, and regional partners to de-escalate and create the space for the full implementation of the president’s plan. Achieving a lasting peace is hard but achievable if everyone makes their best efforts.”
The Board of Peace posted Mladenov’s UN comments, quoting him as saying, “Gaza’s crisis has never been only a security or humanitarian problem. It has always been a political and governance problem. The National Committee is composed of independent Palestinian professionals. Its purpose is to govern during the transition and restore effective administration.” He also said, “This transition will ultimately be judged not by the structures we establish but by whether Palestinians experience greater security, more reliable services, and a measurable improvement in daily life.”
Another piece said Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank showed it was pursuing both tactical and strategic objectives simultaneously, moving beyond commitments it previously made under President Donald Trump’s plan and the agenda of Nickolay Mladenov, the Peace Council’s high representative for Gaza. It said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had again rejected any conditions from Hamas for accepting disarmament, potentially freezing the process until another intervention by Jared Kushner, the US special peace envoy, and Mladenov’s Peace Council. Washington had recently tried to apply pressure to prevent Netanyahu from completely sabotaging the American plan.
Israel was planning buffer zones and model communities inside Gaza, and a green zone was being constructed in eastern Rafah. The Yellow Line was being shifted while Israeli forces moved from contact zones deeper into residential areas. Israel was creating a new reality across roughly 70% of the territory where it maintains a presence, while seeking to crowd Palestinians into the remaining area as preparation for their eventual transfer to countries that have indicated a willingness to receive them. American companies and organizations were also providing financial support for Palestinian emigration from Gaza, with the aim of emptying the Strip of its inhabitants.
The same piece said Netanyahu’s government was betting on freezing the current situation on its own terms until parliamentary elections in October and the formation of what Netanyahu calls an “all-Israel government.” It said it was therefore unlikely that Kushner or Mladenov would succeed in restraining Israeli behavior. Israel’s plan for the West Bank was advancing through settlement expansion, bypass roads, alternative corridors and thousands of new housing units, and before beginning its current recess the Knesset approved a series of measures designed to accelerate settlement plans and connect major settlements deep inside the West Bank.
It said these developments also extended to Islamic and Christian holy sites, violating agreements that place their custodianship in Jordanian hands. Israel was demolishing Palestinian refugee camps and establishing unauthorized outposts in their place, pending formal approval by the government body responsible for settlements, while arming settlers and protecting their daily movements. It said all of this formed part of the current governing coalition’s program and was proceeding according to an agreed timetable in Jerusalem, Nablus, Jenin and elsewhere. Full implementation of the settlement project would require the displacement of thousands of Palestinians abroad, including to Jordan, which Israel’s far Right regards as the alternative homeland capable of absorbing them.
The piece said the West Bank project increasingly resembled what was happening in Gaza, with Israel exploiting the region’s current upheaval to advance both. It said Israel appeared determined to accelerate these plans at both the demographic and strategic levels, with the central objective of emptying Palestinian territory of its Palestinian inhabitants. What was happening now was merely a prelude to what comes next, and at a chosen moment thousands of Palestinians could be expelled at once, particularly in Jerusalem, where removing Palestinian residents would create the opportunity for further steps around al-Aqsa Mosque, including excavation connected to construction of the Temple, and an attempt to settle the trajectory of the conflict decisively in Israel’s favor.