Why Trump’s Hamas disarmament announcement offers hope and little else for now

• Hamas agreed to disarm only after Israel withdraws, contradicting Trump's announcement that disarmament will precede Israeli withdrawal.
• The agreement depends on unestablished institutions, unfunded bodies, and an under-resourced international force, making implementation uncertain.
• Israel remains hesitant, with Prime Minister Netanyahu delaying action due to upcoming elections and demanding full disarmament before any withdrawal.

LONDON - US President Donald Trump’s announcement that his so-called Board of Peace for Gaza had secured – as he put it on social media – a “HISTORIC agreement for the COMPLETE DISARMAMENT” of the Hamas organisation and “all other armed groups in Gaza” is the most significant development in the war-torn Palestinian enclave since the guns fell silent on Oct 10, 2025.

It is also, on evidence available so far, an agreement about sequencing the peace process, by attempting to regulate the order of events such as whether Israel or Hamas make the first move, how far each side is expected to concede to each other and who verifies compliance.

Israel has insisted since last year’s ceasefire that Hamas disarms before the Israel Defense Forces withdraw. Hamas has insisted that the IDF withdraws before Hamas disarms.

Trump’s July 30 road map is presented in Washington as the resolution of that deadlock. But within hours of Trump’s announcement, both parties were describing it in terms that simply revived the conundrum.

Trump’s announcement was unambiguous in Israel’s favour: “with the completion of disarmament, Israeli forces will withdraw”, the US leader claimed in a post on social platforms.

A Washington source, quoted by Israel’s public broadcaster, claimed that Trump “was clear in his tweet that withdrawal comes after demilitarisation”. The implication here is, therefore, that Hamas must make the first move.

But Ghazi Hamad, a member of the Hamas negotiating delegation, told the Al Jazeera pan-Arab TV network on July 31 that his movement “will not take any action regarding disarmament prior to Israel’s withdrawal from the Strip”.

Indeed, Hamad went further by diluting the significance of the entire agreement. “We didn’t say disarmament, we didn’t say handing over the weapons, and we didn’t agree on any Israeli involvement,” he said, referring to Hamas’ negotiating stance.

What Hamas has agreed to, according to Hamad’s account, is merely to place weapons in a storage facility supervised by a Palestinian committee, which is yet to be created.

Why Hamas signed

The real question is not whether Hamas has undergone a change of heart – it has not – but rather why the radical organisation, which is mistrusted by moderate Palestinian political leaders, agreed to sign any agreement now.

The answer is money and patronage. The US and Israel have spent months systematically drying up Hamas’ revenue streams. The organisation relied on imposing fees on local Gaza traders, and on money from abroad; both sources have now vanished. “We think we have succeeded in bringing Hamas to a position where it can no longer say ‘no’,” a US intelligence source claimed.

The second factor is Iran. According to a variety of reports, the Hamas delegation that travelled to Iran for the recent funeral of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in the US-Israeli strikes in February, was encouraged by Iranian military commanders not to cooperate with the US. But Hamas may have calculated that it can no longer rely on a weakened Iran for support, as it has often done in the past.

Neighbouring Egypt, and especially Hassan Rashad, the head of Egyptian intelligence, also played a critical role by pushing Hamas into a deal.

Non-existent peace machinery

Regardless of how Israel and Hamas may interpret it, the agreement can only work if its required institutions are in place.

The National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, the technocratic body formed in January and led by Ali Shaath, a 68-year-old moderate Palestinian official, is expected to take custody of every weapon in the Strip. But Israel has warned that its members will not be permitted into Gaza until Hamas is disarmed.

Meanwhile, the Board of Peace – the over-arching body established by Trump to oversee the entire project – currently lacks the money to fund the National Committee and its projected police force. And the new police force is to consist of thousands of Palestinians vetted by the Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic security service, meaning Israel holds a veto over the personnel of the body that will take Hamas’ guns.

The International Stabilisation Force, the soldiers who are expected to uphold the future peace in Gaza, is in worse shape. Announced in February, commanded on paper by US Major-General Jasper Jeffers under a United Nations mandate, it has attracted pledges of “over 5,000 troops”, according to a US official.

Yet what actually exists on the ground is 200 Moroccan and Ugandan military personnel in a limited sector of Gaza, and even this contingent was approved by Israel’s security Cabinet only on July 26.

Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kosovo and Albania, all Muslim-majority countries previously committed to send troops, have suspended their contributions. Yet without a rapid build-up of soldiers, the International Stabilisation Force cannot secure weapons depots across a land strip of 2.3 million people, let alone stand as a buffer between the IDF and Palestinian fighters.

So the plan requires a Palestinian administration that cannot enter, funded by money that has not been raised, protected by a force that has not deployed, policed by officers Israel has not yet vetted, taking custody of weapons whose definition has not been agreed.

Much hope is placed on the 14-day deadline to produce an implementation timetable, which began on July 30. But officials are already distancing themselves from this timetable.

Israel’s silence

The most telling reaction was the absence of an Israeli response. As President Trump announced the deal, no immediate reaction came from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

What did emerge later was a statement issued by Netanyahu’s office, pouring cold water on the deal by claiming that the disarmament proposal did not meet Israel’s demands, which remain the removal of all weapons from Gaza as a precondition for any process.

The reason for this Israeli reticence is the political calendar. Netanyahu faces a general election in October, and the last thing the Israeli leader now needs is a withdrawal from Gaza on terms he cannot present as a total Israeli victory. So, Netanyahu evidently intends to drag his feet.

Still, US pressure on Israel will be intense. White House sources were quick to brief journalists that President Trump will be “very disappointed” if Israel doesn’t allow for the implementation of the US plan for the reconstruction of Gaza.