Board of Peace is considering abandoning its phased framework for Hamas’s disarmament amid Israeli pushback to the US-controlled body’s original plan, a source directly familiar with the negotiations told The Times of Israel on Monday

Sequenced disarmament-for-withdrawal frameworks in this theatre have a long history of collapsing at the stage-setting step: the party asked to disarm first typically refuses, and the party asked to withdraw first cites that refusal as grounds to hold position. Moving to an all-weapons-first structure shifts the entire burden of proof onto Hamas before any Israeli concession, a design that has historically been acceptable to Israeli negotiators and unacceptable to armed groups whose leverage is the weapons themselves. The reported risk that months of coaxing are undone by the redesign is the familiar pattern in ceasefire mediation, where each side's assent is contingent on the other's sequencing and a change to the order of operations restarts the negotiation rather than advancing it. The 'US-controlled body' framing matters: frameworks shepherded by a single dominant sponsor have tended to hold only while the sponsor applies sustained pressure on both parties, and attention centres on whether Washington leans on Hamas through its intermediaries or treats the shift as settled. The watch items are Hamas's formal response, any counter-proposal restoring phased sequencing, and whether the existing ceasefire terms hold while the disarmament track is renegotiated, since breakdowns in the diplomatic track have historically preceded renewed kinetic escalation. For markets the established transmission in such episodes runs through regional risk premia, crude, shipping insurance and the shekel rather than broad risk.