The problem with the wording is really, really obvious. Though to be fair it isn't just Bruce burying their head in the sand about it. That clause is part of the first step which is meant to be implemented- hostage release- and it is not crystal clear about what is required when it has to be absolutely clear.
 
	Hamas will obviously read its intent as requiring a withdrawal, Israel will obviously read it as not requiring a withdrawal; and both will be right/ wrong, because it says both. Yet you cannot do both. So from the get go one side or the other will view the other as breaking the agreement. The net effect- and one suspects it's by design- is telling Hamas to give up their leverage for nothing except maybe some prisoners. And Israel can always administratively detain, ie kidnap*, more people later.
 
	The wording might not be a problem if the sides had trust, or there was an enforcement mechanism for Israel but as it stands it's set up to fail at the first hurdle and ideally- for the west and Israel- immediately after Hamas releases the hostages.
 
	*83% civilian, by Israel's own leaked stats.
 
 
	This is basically the Iraqi Provisional Authority/ Afghan Interim Administration of Gaza, and they had no problem enriching themselves or their supporters. Massive fees, no bid contracts for overpriced infrastructure projects (completion, optional), large wadges of dosh disappearing off into the ether, huge payments to Erik Prince's mercenaries for security. Just replace mineral concessions with selling beach real estate so Don and Bibi can sunbathe there without the AI generation.