Washington says Hamas and other armed factions have accepted a phased process linking the surrender of weapons to an Israeli withdrawal, but major disagreements over timing, verification and security remain unresolved.
The United States has announced what it describes as a potentially historic framework for the disarmament of Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups, presenting the agreement as a possible route toward an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and a transfer of power to a civilian Palestinian administration.
President Donald Trump said the proposed arrangement marked a major advance in implementing his administration’s broader peace plan for the territory. Under the framework outlined by U.S. officials, Gaza would be progressively demilitarised, Hamas would relinquish its weapons and military infrastructure, and Israeli forces would withdraw in stages as agreed security conditions were met.
The announcement represents rare progress on an issue that has repeatedly obstructed negotiations. Hamas has historically argued that it would not surrender its weapons while Israeli troops remained in Gaza, while Israel has insisted that it cannot complete its withdrawal until the organisation is fully disarmed. The new proposal seeks to break that deadlock by dividing both processes into interconnected phases rather than requiring either side to act completely before the other.
According to reports on the negotiations, the process could take between roughly 200 and 350 days. Hamas and other factions would be expected to provide information about weapons stockpiles, tunnel networks and military installations before progressively surrendering or decommissioning their arsenals. Heavy weapons, underground infrastructure and explosives are likely to be among the most difficult elements to address.
An internationally supported monitoring system would reportedly oversee compliance. Earlier versions of the U.S. plan included the destruction of military infrastructure, a weapons-buyback and reintegration programme, and the deployment of an international stabilisation force to help maintain security as Israeli troops departed.
The framework also envisions a significant political transformation inside Gaza. Hamas has already announced the dissolution of its governing administration and preparations to transfer civilian responsibilities to a technocratic Palestinian committee. Under the proposed arrangement, the group would lose both its formal governing role and, eventually, its independent military power.
A new Palestinian administrative body would be responsible for public services, reconstruction and day-to-day governance. International personnel and a newly organised Palestinian police force could assume responsibility for security in areas vacated by Israeli troops, although the precise composition, authority and rules of engagement for such forces remain unsettled.
Washington has described the proposal as an agreement for complete disarmament. Hamas representatives, however, have presented a more conditional interpretation. One negotiator said the movement had not accepted unconditional or immediate surrender of all weapons and maintained that disarmament must occur alongside a guaranteed Israeli withdrawal, unrestricted humanitarian access and protection against renewed military operations.
This difference is more than a matter of language. It goes to the centre of the conflict between the parties. Israel fears that a gradual process could allow Hamas to conceal weapons, preserve parts of its tunnel system or rebuild its capabilities after troops leave. Hamas, meanwhile, fears that surrendering its arsenal before a full withdrawal would leave it and the wider Palestinian population exposed if Israel resumed large-scale operations.
Israel has not formally endorsed all the latest terms, and Israeli officials have reportedly expressed dissatisfaction with provisions that could allow withdrawal to begin before Gaza is completely demilitarised. The government has long demanded the elimination of Hamas as both a military and governing force and remains deeply sceptical that the organisation will voluntarily surrender its remaining capabilities.
The sequencing of the plan will therefore be crucial. Each stage would require a method for confirming that specified weapons had been surrendered, tunnels destroyed and command structures dismantled before the corresponding Israeli withdrawal proceeded. The credibility and independence of the monitors would be essential because neither party is likely to accept verification controlled by the other.
Egypt has played a central role in the negotiations, hosting talks between Hamas representatives and mediators in Cairo. Qatar and other regional governments have also been involved in efforts to preserve the ceasefire and advance the political transition. Reports described the latest discussions as unusually productive, although substantial technical negotiations are still required.
The agreement forms part of a broader 20-point U.S. plan intended to end the war, establish transitional governance, increase humanitarian assistance and begin the reconstruction of Gaza. The territory has suffered widespread destruction, population displacement and the collapse of essential infrastructure after years of fighting.
Reconstruction is expected to be closely tied to demilitarisation. International donors may be reluctant to finance major rebuilding projects unless they receive assurances that renewed conflict will not destroy them. At the same time, Hamas is unlikely to surrender its remaining leverage without evidence that reconstruction, aid deliveries and Israeli withdrawal are genuinely proceeding.
The future of Palestinian politics also remains uncertain. Removing Hamas from government and dismantling its armed wing would create a political and security vacuum unless the new civilian administration quickly establishes legitimacy. Its success would depend on whether Palestinians regard it as an independent national institution rather than a body imposed by foreign powers or operating under Israeli control.
The plan must also address the future of thousands of Hamas fighters and members of other armed factions. Disarmament programmes in previous conflicts have often combined weapons collection with amnesties, employment opportunities, political participation or reintegration into civilian society. Without a credible alternative, some fighters could refuse to cooperate or join smaller factions determined to continue armed resistance.
Spoilers on both sides could threaten the process. Palestinian groups rejecting disarmament may attempt to provoke renewed fighting, while Israeli political factions opposed to withdrawal could resist territorial concessions or demand continued military control over strategic areas. Even isolated attacks could undermine confidence and lead either side to suspend implementation.
Continuing violence illustrates the fragility of the moment. Israeli strikes were still being reported in Gaza as the agreement was announced, including attacks that Palestinian medical officials said killed civilians. Such incidents could rapidly weaken support for the framework and reinforce Hamas’s demand for stronger guarantees before surrendering weapons.
Nevertheless, the reported acceptance of a broad disarmament process represents a potentially significant shift. For years, Hamas treated its weapons as inseparable from its identity and political influence, while Israel regarded their elimination as a non-negotiable condition for ending the war. A framework that connects disarmament, withdrawal, civilian government and reconstruction could provide both parties with a way to move incrementally rather than resolving every dispute at once.
Its success, however, will depend less on the announcement than on the details that follow. The parties must still agree on which weapons are covered, who will collect them, how tunnels will be identified, when Israeli units will withdraw and what happens when either side is accused of violating the arrangement.
The proposal therefore remains a framework rather than a completed peace settlement. It may offer the clearest route yet toward ending armed rule by Hamas and prolonged Israeli military operations in Gaza, but every phase will require sustained pressure, independent verification and political decisions that both sides have resisted for years.
The coming negotiations will determine whether the announcement becomes the foundation of a postwar order or another diplomatic initiative overwhelmed by mistrust. For Gaza’s population, the difference could decide whether the enclave enters a difficult period of reconstruction or returns once again to open conflict.
