Martin Kear
US President Donald Trump has declared that Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups in Gaza have agreed to a complete disarmament framework, hailing the development as a historic "critical step" towards establishing long-term peace, security, and humanitarian relief across the war-torn enclave.
Trump stated that the proposed disarmament process would pave the way for a newly constituted Palestinian technocratic committee, known as the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, to assume civil governance across the strip. This transition is intended to facilitate the phased withdrawal of Israeli armed forces, in accordance with the 20-point peace plan endorsed last October.
While representatives of Hamas confirmed their agreement to the overarching roadmap, members of the group’s negotiating delegation issued an immediate caveat, stressing that any decommissioning of weapons remains strictly conditional upon the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces. The announcement has sparked intense debate over whether this represents a genuine diplomatic breakthrough or merely another fragile peace effort.
For Hamas, agreeing to surrender its military arsenal represents a profound political and ideological shift. Since its inception in 1987 during the First Intifada, the movement has forged its entire identity around armed confrontation against Israeli occupation across Palestinian territories.
In its updated 2017 political charter, Hamas explicitly affirmed that it "rejects any attempt to undermine the resistance and its arms", declaring that "armed resistance... is regarded as the strategic choice for protecting the principles and rights of the Palestinian people".
This commitment to armed struggle lies at the core of Hamas’ political authority and popular appeal among Palestinians. Armed resistance is widely viewed as intrinsically linked to the national effort to secure statehood. Even among citizens who do not subscribe to Hamas’ Islamist ideology or administrative record, there remains widespread support for its role as an active force confronting Israeli power, acting as either a lever for statehood or a check against permanent occupation.
Public opinion data reflects this sentiment. A survey conducted in October 2025 by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) indicated that 60% of respondents remained satisfied with Hamas’ overall performance, while 69% expressed explicit opposition to disarming Palestinian factions in Gaza. Surrendering its weapons would thus mean risking its core domestic legitimacy — a gamble the leadership may resist taking.
The practical mechanics of the disarmament proposal raise further unresolved questions. Media reports indicate that the plan entails not only the handover of weapons but also the comprehensive dismantling of military infrastructure, including underground tunnel networks, production facilities, and ammunition depots. Given the widespread devastation across Gaza after months of military operations, verifying remaining infrastructure presents an immense challenge.
Similarly, the exact inventory of weapons currently held by Hamas’ military wing remains uncertain. Pre-conflict estimates suggested tens of thousands of assault rifles alongside anti-tank weaponry and rocket systems, but the extent of recent stock depletion is unknown.
Furthermore, Hamas maintains an active presence outside Gaza, notably in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The framework does not clarify whether disarmament obligations extend to these areas. Amid persistent violence by radical Jewish settlers against Palestinian communities in the West Bank, local armed elements are unlikely to disarm voluntarily.
From a strategic standpoint, agreeing to relinquish administrative duties in Gaza could serve as a calculated tactical move for Hamas. Shedding heavy governance burdens could allow the movement to rebuild its damaged organisational framework while preserving its standing as a symbol of resistance.
Simultaneously, severe obstacles persist on the Israeli side. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has voiced strong objections to aspects of the White House timeline. An Israeli official quoted by the Times of Israel stated: "There will be no Israeli withdrawal from the Yellow Line in the Gaza Strip before Hamas is disarmed and the Strip is fully demilitarised".
Internal political pressure within Israel further complicates the picture. Far-right ministers recently proposed establishing three "nahal" outposts in northern Gaza — structures combining military installations with agricultural activities, historically serving as precursors to permanent civilian settlements.
The peace initiative could ultimately collapse over Israeli resistance unless Washington exerts sustained diplomatic pressure on Tel Aviv. Indications of friction have already surfaced, with US officials warning that Trump would be "very disappointed" if Prime Minister Netanyahu's government blocked progress. Whether Washington can successfully steer both recalcitrant parties through these formidable diplomatic hurdles remains the ultimate test for the peace deal.