Critics and skeptical observers have raised significant concerns regarding the practical implementation of the disarmament agreement, noting that previous attempts to reach lasting peace have often faltered due to a lack of trust. The primary concern is whether Hamas will genuinely follow through on its commitment to relinquish its weapons and dismantle its tunnel network. Skeptics point out that without robust, immediate enforcement mechanisms, the agreement could be used as a tactical pause rather than a genuine step toward peace.
There is also apprehension regarding the role of the international stabilization force. Questions remain about the composition, mandate, and willingness of these forces to intervene if the disarmament process is obstructed or if violence resumes. Furthermore, the lack of an immediate, unified response from the Israeli government suggests that there is significant internal debate about the risks of withdrawing forces before the disarmament is fully verified and irreversible. Many fear that a premature withdrawal could leave a security vacuum that other militant factions might exploit.
Finally, the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains dire, and there is doubt about whether a new technocratic government will have the legitimacy or the resources to effectively govern and rebuild. Critics argue that unless the underlying political and social grievances are addressed alongside the disarmament, the plan may fail to achieve lasting stability. The history of the conflict suggests that agreements on paper are only as strong as the willingness of the parties to uphold them, and many remain unconvinced that this latest effort will be different.