The announcement points to possible movement in the Gaza ceasefire process, but the hardest pieces are still ahead: who verifies Hamas disarmament, when Israeli forces leave, and who governs Gaza next.
Hamas agreed to a Trump-backed plan for disarmament in Gaza, Donald Trump said Thursday in Washington, announcing that the White House’s U.S.-led Board of Peace had reached an agreement tied to the Trump disarmament plan. The agreement has implications for the war in Gaza and Israeli troop withdrawal, while Cairo remains a key diplomatic venue. Israel has not publicly confirmed the deal, and significant hurdles and conditions remain before the deal is finalized.
The announcement, reported by Reuters and AP, is being framed by Trump as progress toward ending one of the most difficult parts of the Gaza ceasefire. But the available details show a phased process, not a completed settlement.
A deal with many caveats
Trump said the Board of Peace had reached an agreement for the complete disarmament of Hamas militants. AP reported that a Hamas official later said the group had reached an agreement on disarmament, describing it as the most crucial part of the ceasefire deal.
That is a major statement if it holds. Hamas giving up weapons has long been one of Israel’s central demands and one of the hardest conditions for mediators to turn into a practical plan.
But the announcement immediately ran into a familiar problem: acceptance in principle is not the same as implementation. AP reported that Israel had not indicated it had agreed to the latest arrangement. That matters because the plan links Hamas disarmament to Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.
The White House version also leaves open who verifies that weapons are surrendered, how tunnels are destroyed, and what happens if one side says the other has failed to meet a benchmark.
How disarmament would work
According to AP, Trump said the agreement would be carried out in carefully structured phases. As disarmament is completed, Israeli forces would withdraw, and an International Stabilization Force would work with a new Palestinian police force to take responsibility for security in Gaza.
The plan is part of Trump’s broader 20-point ceasefire framework. AP said that framework calls for Hamas to surrender its weapons and destroy its tunnel network. It also envisions Israeli forces leaving Gaza, a new technocratic Palestinian government taking over day-to-day administration, an international security force deploying, and reconstruction beginning in the devastated enclave.
Officials described one near-term step: the Gaza police force would turn over weapons to a Board of Peace-backed Gaza administration within the next two weeks, AP reported. But those officials also said that does not cover the vast majority of Hamas militants or heavy weaponry.
The harder work would come later. A Board of Peace official told AP that surrendering heavy weapons and decommissioning tunnels and other infrastructure could take between 200 and 350 days.
Israel’s silence is pivotal
The plan’s political weakness is clear: without Israeli agreement, a phased withdrawal cannot begin in any meaningful way. Trump’s announcement says disarmament and withdrawal are linked, but it does not show that Israel has accepted the sequence, the timeline or the security guarantees.
Israel has been deeply skeptical of any arrangement that leaves Hamas with room to rearm, reorganize or retain informal control. Even if Hamas signs onto a phased disarmament process, Israel may demand proof before reducing military pressure.
That creates a sequencing problem. Hamas is unlikely to surrender its most valuable weapons without confidence that Israel will withdraw. Israel is unlikely to withdraw without confidence that Hamas has been disarmed. Mediators are trying to build a bridge between those two positions, but the bridge is still mostly procedural.
The role of the International Stabilization Force is also unresolved in practical terms. Israel would need to trust it. Palestinians in Gaza would need to tolerate it. Outside countries would need to provide personnel, funding and political cover for a mission that could become dangerous quickly.
Gaza governance remains unsettled
Disarmament is only one part of the ceasefire architecture. The Trump plan also calls for Hamas to have no role in governing Gaza and for a technocratic Palestinian committee to oversee daily public services under the supervision of the Board of Peace.
That may sound tidy on paper. In Gaza, it is far more complicated. Any new administration would have to manage security, aid distribution, hospitals, water, electricity, rubble removal and reconstruction while operating in a territory shattered by war.
AP reported that aid is entering Gaza, though aid groups say not at the level promised, and large-scale reconstruction has not started. That gap between diplomatic design and life on the ground is one reason the disarmament deal could face pressure quickly.
There is also the question of Palestinian legitimacy. A technocratic committee backed by the U.S.-led Board of Peace may reassure Israel and foreign donors, but it could struggle if Palestinians see it as externally imposed or disconnected from their political future.
The hardest weapons come last
The early phase involving police weapons may be easier to verify than the later phase involving Hamas’s military infrastructure. Heavy weapons, tunnels, weapons workshops and hidden stockpiles are the real test of the deal.
AP reported that the plan includes destroying tunnels and weapons production facilities, along with an internationally funded buyback and reintegration program for weapons decommissioning. It also includes amnesty and possible safe passage for some Hamas members who give up arms.
Those details point to a strategy used in other conflict settings: combine pressure with incentives, then try to move fighters into civilian life or exile. The problem is that Hamas is not only an armed group; it has also been a political and social force in Gaza. Disarming its military wing does not automatically dissolve its networks.
Other armed groups also operate in Gaza, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad. U.S. and Board of Peace officials were unable to provide specific timelines for disarming Hamas or other groups, AP reported. That uncertainty could become a major loophole if one faction complies partially while another continues to operate.
What to watch next
The next signal will be whether Israel publicly accepts, rejects or seeks to revise the arrangement. A statement from Hamas is important, but Israeli military withdrawal depends on Israeli approval and on the security benchmarks built into the plan.
Another key test is whether the promised two-week turnover of Gaza police weapons happens as described. If that early step stalls, confidence in the longer 200-to-350-day process will weaken fast.
Diplomacy through Washington and Cairo will also matter. The White House can announce the framework, but regional mediators and participating governments will have to help define monitoring, enforcement, funding and the composition of any stabilization force.
For now, the announcement is best understood as a possible opening, not an end to the Gaza war. It puts Hamas disarmament, Israeli withdrawal and postwar Gaza governance into one package. Whether that package survives contact with the battlefield, Israeli politics and Palestinian realities is still unclear.
Leave a Reply