A Hamas 'Breakthrough' or Another Trump-Conjured Mirage?

hamas disarmament — (Abdel Kareem Hana/AP)

By Martin Kear

US President Donald Trump has announced that Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza have agreed to disarm. He’s calling it a “critical step” toward lasting peace and security in the strip.

Trump said Hamas’ disarmament would allow for a Palestinian committee to take over governing in Gaza and Israel’s military withdrawal from the enclave, as mandated under his 20-point peace plan, to which Hamas and Israel agreed last October.

Hamas officials say they have agreed to the process, though a member of the negotiating team cautioned that its disarmament was dependent on Israel’s full withdrawal from Gaza.

So, is this a major step forward, or are there still too many questions left unresolved?

Hamas’ legitimacy

If Hamas does agree to a complete disarmament, this would be an enormous concession by the movement in its nearly 40-year resistance to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.

Hamas was launched in 1987 with the dual goals of resisting Israel’s occupation and challenging the Fatah party’s domination of Palestinian politics.

In its 2017 charter, Hamas said it “rejects any attempt to undermine the resistance and its arms”. It added that “armed restistance … is regarded as the strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people”.

Additionally, Hamas’ armed resistance lies at the heart of its legitimacy among Palestinians. And for Palestinians, this resistance is linked inextricably with the advancement of efforts to attainment statehood.

This means that while Palestinians may not necessarily support Hamas politically or agree with its Islamist agenda, they do respect the movement. Many view its continued armed resistance to Israel’s occupation as either advancing efforts to achieve statehood or inhibiting Israel’s efforts to make its occupation permanent.

In the most recent polling of Palestinians by the People’s Company for Polls and Survey Research (PCPSR) in October 2025, 60% of respondents (66% in the West Bank and 51% in Gaza) were satisfied with Hamas’ performance and 69% (87% in the West Bank and 55% in Gaza) were opposed to the disarmament of Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Given this, it is hard to believe Hamas will risk this level of support among Palestinians.

Details are vague

According to initial media reports, Hamas’ disarmament would consist not only of surrendering its weapons, but also the dismantling of its military infrastructure in Gaza. This would include its tunnel network, heavy weapons, production facilities and weapon depots.

Given the wholesale destruction of the Gaza Strip, it is unclear how much of this infrastructure still exists.

It’s also unclear how many weapons its military wing actually has. Recent reports suggest it may have tens of thousands of automatic rifles and heavy weapons like anti-tank rockets, but it could be far fewer now.

Other details also remain unclear: who would undertake the task of disarming Hamas and how it would be confirmed? A US official told the BBC a third-party committee would be responsible for this, without elaborating.

Also, Hamas does not just exist in the Gaza Strip – it has a presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, too. It’s unclear whether the disarmament would extend to those elements of the group.

Given the continued violence being perpetrated by radical Jewish settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, it is not inconceivable that members of Hamas or other Palestinian armed movements may seek to resist this violence with their own.

Agreeing to disarm and give up its administrative responsibilities in Gaza could very well be a strategic move on the part of Hamas. It could enable the group to recover organisationally from the severe battering it took from Israel, while still retaining its resistance agenda among the broader Palestinian population.

What will Israel do?

Israel’s response to the agreement is the other major challenge. Initial reports suggest the government is objecting to Trump’s plan.

According to an Israeli official quoted by the Times of Israel:

There will be no Israeli withdrawal from the Yellow Line in the Gaza Strip before Hamas is disarmed and the Strip is fully demilitarised.

Just two weeks ago, Israel’s far-right defence and finance ministers also proposed the creation of three “nahal” outposts in northern Gaza.

These types of outposts combine a military presence with agricultural and community activities. Historically, they have been the precursor for permanent Israeli settlements.

This opposition from Israel is where the agreement could likely break down, unless Trump can put suitable pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to allow the peace process to continue. This pressure was already starting to mount on Friday, with a US official saying Trump would be “very disappointed” if Israel stood in the way.

Martin Kear is Lecturer at the Department of Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney.

The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.See the Full Conversation Archives