Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared on Sunday that Israel rejects the 15-point Gaza framework formulated by the Board of Peace. But could it be that, despite Israel’s public statements, the reality on the ground is somewhat different?
If one looks at Israel’s actions rather than its public rhetoric, the picture is more complicated. In practice, Israel is currently implementing the 15-point agreement.
For several days now, it has refrained from carrying out targeted killings and has maintained the ceasefire in Gaza. The directive was issued to the military on Monday evening by the IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir, following an instruction from the political leadership. Since then, no targeted killings have been carried out.
At the same time, in terms of Israel’s military deployment on the ground, the IDF is effectively positioned along the original Yellow Line, which encompasses approximately 53% of the Gaza Strip, with no current positions or forces deployed beyond.
So, yes. Publicly, Israeli officials are sending strong verbal messages rejecting the 15-point framework. But when it comes to what is actually happening on the ground, the Israeli government is, in practice, adhering to the framework.
Issue of Gaza's reconstruction
The issue of Gaza’s reconstruction is more complicated. Israeli statements on this issue have been unequivocal and dramatic: There will be no reconstruction of Gaza before Hamas is fully disarmed.
But there is an important distinction that needs to be made.
The position of the Board of Peace is that what is currently being built in the Rafah area - inside the portion of Gaza under Israeli control - is not permanent reconstruction. Rather, these are temporary structures. However, their deployment requires certain initial infrastructure work.
In other words, while Israel continues to publicly insist that there will be no reconstruction before genuine demilitarization, the activities currently taking place in the Rafah area appear to be consistent with the framework’s distinction between temporary infrastructure and permanent reconstruction.
All of this creates a notable gap between Israel’s public messaging and the practical implementation of the framework on the ground.