Board of Peace’s Gaza envoy denies financial deal with Hamas: ‘Not on the table’
The Board of Peace on Wednesday denied that there is any “financial agreement” with Hamas, after the Kan public broadcaster reported that the body agreed to cover $400 million of Hamas’s debt to outside parties as part of its roadmap for the terror group’s disarmament.
Instead, the sum earmarked in the disarmament plan will be used to pay severance to Hamas civil servants who don’t end up being hired by the new Palestinian technocratic government meant to run the territory, an Arab diplomat from one of the mediating countries told The Times of Israel on Wednesday.
“The claims that there is a financial agreement between the Board of Peace and Hamas are false,” Board of Peace Gaza envoy Nickolay Mladenov wrote in Hebrew on X on Wednesday. “No such proposal was discussed, negotiated, or considered, and it will not be on the table in the future either.”
“Hamas will have no role in the governance of Gaza and will have no access to funds,” he continued.
The issue gained attention on Tuesday when Kan reported that Hamas was assured by mediators that $400 million of its debt would be covered by the Board of Peace if it agreed to the disarmament plan.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly rejected the Board of Peace’s disarmament plan on Sunday, when he said Israeli troops would not withdraw from the enclave until Hamas is “genuinely disarmed.” Despite the public rejection, a Board of Peace official told Reuters on Monday that the disarmament plan was still on the table and that discussions with Israel were continuing.
Clause 5 of the plan states that the new Palestinian technocratic government, known as the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), “shall seek to assess the legitimate commitments to suppliers, contractors and other parties — up to a total amount of no more than $400M — and address them.”
The NCAG is overseen by the Board of Peace. A Board of Peace official stressed to The Times of Israel that the clause is not the same as a financial agreement.
“It allows legitimate outstanding obligations, such as unpaid public servants or suppliers who provided genuine........
