Israel is conditioning implementation of the remaining stages of the Gaza cease-fire agreement on Hamas agreeing to disarm, Nickolay Mladenov, the high representative of the Gaza Board of Peace, said Thursday. The arrangement leaves the fate of the cease-fire in the hands of armed and political authorities, while people in Gaza remain subject to decisions made above them.
Who Holds the Levers
Mladenov presented the UN Security Council with a proposal to Hamas outlining phased disarmament and integration of Hamas-linked police into a technocratic committee in Gaza. The proposal places the next steps of the agreement inside a managed process shaped by institutions and outside power, with the terms set through diplomatic channels rather than by the people living under the consequences.
The proposal was presented in the context of Israel potentially enacting Trump's plan after Hamas disarms. That framing makes the remaining stages of the cease-fire contingent on a demand from the occupying power, with the timeline and terms tied to whether Hamas gives up weapons.
What People Are Being Asked to Accept
The proposal Mladenov brought to the UN Security Council calls for phased disarmament, a step-by-step process that would strip Hamas of weapons before the rest of the cease-fire agreement moves forward. It also calls for Hamas-linked police to be folded into a technocratic committee in Gaza, turning armed local forces into part of an administrative structure.
That kind of arrangement is presented through the language of order and transition, but the facts on the table show a hierarchy of control: Israel sets a condition, the UN Security Council receives the proposal, and Gaza is left waiting for decisions made elsewhere. The people at the bottom do not appear as decision-makers in the article; they are the ones expected to live with the outcome.
The Machinery Behind the Proposal
Nickolay Mladenov, identified as the high representative of the Gaza Board of Peace, delivered the proposal to the UN Security Council. The board and the council are the institutional channels through which the plan is being processed, with the language of peace attached to a structure of compliance and disarmament.
The article says the proposal was made in the context of Israel potentially enacting Trump's plan after Hamas disarms. That means the remaining stages of the cease-fire are not described as automatic or mutual, but as conditional on Hamas meeting a demand set by Israel. The power dynamic is plain enough: one side gets to define the terms, and the other is told what must be surrendered before anything else can happen.
No grassroots response, mutual aid effort, or self-organized alternative is described in the article. What is described instead is a top-down process moving through the UN Security Council, with a technocratic committee and phased disarmament as the language of governance.
The article gives no further details on the remaining stages of the cease-fire agreement beyond Israel's condition and Mladenov's proposal. What it does show is a familiar arrangement: institutions speak in the name of peace while the people living under the arrangement are left to absorb the consequences of decisions made by states and their representatives.