Trump is hailing it as a ‘breakthrough’, but will Hamas actually disarm in Gaza?

U.S. President Donald Trump has declared that Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza have reached an agreement to disarm, calling it a “critical step” toward achieving lasting peace and security in the region. According to Trump, this disarmament would pave the way for a Palestinian committee to assume governance in Gaza and for Israel’s military forces to withdraw from the territory, as outlined in Trump's 20-point peace plan, which both Hamas and Israel reportedly accepted in October of last year. Hamas representatives have acknowledged the agreement in principle, although one member of the negotiation team emphasized that the disarmament hinges on Israel’s complete withdrawal from Gaza. The announcement raises pressing questions about whether this marks a genuine breakthrough or leaves numerous uncertainties unaddressed. Hamas has long been defined by its commitment to armed resistance against Israeli occupation. Founded in 1987, the organization was established with the twin objectives of opposing Israel’s control over Palestinian territories and challenging the dominance of the Fatah party within Palestinian political life. In its 2017 charter, Hamas explicitly rejected any attempts to weaken its resistance capabilities and described armed struggle as the primary strategy for safeguarding Palestinian rights and principles. For many Palestinians, Hamas’s armed resistance is deeply intertwined with the pursuit of statehood. While some may not endorse Hamas’s political ideology or its Islamic orientation, they often recognize its role in defending Palestinian interests. Recent polling data from the People’s Company for Polls and Survey Research (PCPSR) in October 2025 indicates that 60 percent of Palestinians expressed satisfaction with Hamas’s performance, with higher approval rates in the West Bank compared to Gaza. Additionally, 69 percent of respondents opposed the disarmament of Hamas in Gaza, with even stronger opposition in the West Bank. These figures suggest that Hamas faces considerable pressure from its supporters should it proceed with disarmament. The potential loss of public backing could severely impact the group’s standing in Palestinian society. Initial reports indicate that Hamas’s disarmament would involve more than simply surrendering its weapons. It would require the dismantling of its entire military infrastructure in Gaza, including tunnels, heavy weaponry, production facilities, and ammunition storage sites. However, given the extensive damage inflicted on Gaza during previous conflicts, it is uncertain how much of this infrastructure remains intact today. Moreover, the exact number of weapons held by Hamas’s military wing is unknown. Some estimates suggest it possesses tens of thousands of automatic rifles and heavy weapons such as anti-tank missiles, though current numbers might be significantly lower due to ongoing hostilities. Other aspects of the disarmament process remain unclear, including who would oversee the implementation and how compliance would be verified. A U.S. official mentioned to the BBC that a third-party committee would handle the disarmament, though specifics were not provided. Hamas’s influence extends beyond Gaza into the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It is unclear whether the disarmament agreement applies to these areas as well. Given the persistent violence carried out by extremist Jewish settlers against Palestinians in these regions, it is possible that some factions within Hamas or other Palestinian armed groups might feel compelled to continue resistance efforts. For Hamas, agreeing to disarm and relinquish administrative control in Gaza could represent a strategic maneuver aimed at rebuilding its organizational strength after suffering substantial losses from Israeli operations. This move might allow the group to maintain its resistance narrative while regaining operational capacity. Israel’s reaction to the agreement presents another key challenge. Early reports suggest that Israeli authorities are evaluating the implications of the deal, particularly regarding security concerns and the feasibility of withdrawing troops from Gaza. The extent to which Israel will comply with the terms of the agreement, and how it will manage the transition of power, remains to be determined.