"The statement by the heads of the Board of Peace is completely contrary to this understanding. In fact there is here an attempt to advance the "roadmap" again in contradiction to the understandings. These grave matters cannot be left without a public and unequivocal Israeli clarification that completely rejects the "regional phased method.""
On Wednesday, September 23, 2026, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, the Board of Peace published a six-month Gaza recovery framework: a $2.45 billion package of 66 costed programs covering shelter, debris clearance, water, hospitals, schools, energy, roads and jobs, to be advanced alongside deployment of the International Stabilization Force and what the board called weapons decommissioning. The published document sets no start date; it says programs are ready to launch "as soon as funding and access allow." Tony Blair, in the board's leadership, spoke of moving from preparation to implementation "within months" without naming a date. The money has not been fully raised. The framework's sequence is phased by district: each area that is disarmed receives the new Palestinian administration (NCAG), the IDF withdraws from it, and reconstruction begins there. On Sunday, September 27, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Missions Minister Orit Strock — both members of the security cabinet — sent Prime Minister Netanyahu a joint letter demanding Israel reject it. They wrote that the proposal is "completely contrary to the understandings that were reached between you and the US administration and the Board of Peace" after the 15-point roadmap Israel had already refused, and that those understandings were that any reconstruction, any entry of foreign forces including the NCAG and the ISF, and any IDF withdrawal "will not be carried out before the complete demilitarization of the entire Gaza Strip." They made three further objections: that the cabinet authorized 200 ISF personnel as disarmament executors only, while the published plan begins with 500; that full demilitarization leaves "no place whatsoever for 'acquisition of weapons' for any forces that would be stationed there"; and that it was "unthinkable" that all 365 square kilometres of Gaza would be rebuilt. They closed by telling Netanyahu they expect him "to clarify in an unequivocal manner that these parts of the statement by the heads of the BoP are not acceptable to Israel, and therefore will not be implemented." The prime minister's own position, stated at an IDF outpost at the Yellow Line on September 2 and in cabinet since, is that Israel controls roughly 60% of the Strip, that "we are not withdrawing, we are staying on this line," and that withdrawal follows "genuine disarmament, not fictitious disarmament." Hamas agreed to the Board of Peace demilitarization roadmap on July 30; implementation has stalled on sequence.
Reported a coalition fight. The Jerusalem Post, Yahoo and the Hebrew outlets all carried the letter accurately and framed it as hardliners pressuring Netanyahu, which it is. What none of them did was set the September letter beside the August one. Entry #41 in this file recorded two ministers writing in August that there would be no rebuilding before Hamas disarms, while the earthwork inside the Yellow Line had already been approved in July. Five weeks later the same instrument is used again, by two ministers, against a plan that now has line items. The escalation is in what is being blocked, not in who is blocking it: in August the objection was to a principle, and in September it is to 66 named projects with a number attached, at the moment the Board of Peace moved from roadmap to budget. Nobody wrote the sentence that follows from the ministers' own text — that on their reading, the condition for rebuilding is the complete demilitarization of the entire Strip, and even then reconstruction is barred in any area they judge threatening, which is a standard no published plan can satisfy and no third party gets to apply. And nobody noted that the American plan's own document has no start date either, so the two positions that appear to be in conflict produce, for now, the same result on the ground.
Entry #41 established the pattern: a stated precondition that keeps moving, announced by ministers rather than by the prime minister, while facts on the ground proceed under a different timetable. Entry #45 established the second half, that on the day the stated goal was called unreachable the line itself was being consolidated. This entry is what the pattern looks like once money enters it. A roadmap can be rejected on principle and nothing measurable happens. A $2.45 billion package of 66 costed programs is a document donors act on, and rejecting it has a price that can be counted — which is precisely why the objection arrived four days after publication and in writing. The ministers are entitled to their position, the letter is a legitimate act of cabinet politics, and nothing in it is secret; they published it. What the record now contains is a reconstruction plan with a budget and no start date, an Israeli cabinet faction demanding a public declaration that it will not be implemented, a prime minister holding 60% of the territory and saying he is not leaving it, and an American administration whose own board wrote "as soon as funding and access allow" — which is to say that all three parties have now committed, in their own published words, to a schedule that no one controls and no one has to defend.