Trump Gets Hamas to Agree to Disarm – No One Believes Them But Its a Step

President Donald Trump is celebrating what he calls a historic breakthrough in the effort to end the war in Gaza after Hamas and other Palestinian factions agreed in principle to disarm under a phased international agreement. While the announcement marks one of the most significant diplomatic developments since the conflict began, the proposal comes with major conditions and an obvious obstacle. Hamas has a long history of violating agreements, leaving many observers questioning whether this time will be different.

Even so, supporters of the negotiations argue that persuading Hamas to formally commit to giving up its weapons represents an important political victory. If the agreement progresses, it could create new opportunities to pressure all sides into honoring their commitments and maintaining a lasting peace.

Trump Calls Agreement a Historic Breakthrough

Trump announced that the Board of Peace had secured what he described as “a HISTORIC agreement for the COMPLETE DISARMAMENT of Hamas and all other armed groups in Gaza.”

He called the deal “a monumental step toward lasting PEACE and SECURITY,” adding that it represents “a critical step” toward Gaza being governed by a new Palestinian government working alongside the Board of Peace.

Trump also argued that the agreement would fundamentally change Gaza’s future.

“At the same time, Israel will have the security it deserves, with Gaza no longer used as a base for terror attacks,” he wrote.

Reflecting on the broader conflict, Trump added, “One year ago there was a violent raging war, humanitarian crisis and hostages kept in brutal captivity. We have made historic progress and there is still much work to do.”

He concluded with what has become the central goal of the initiative.

“Under this agreement, Gaza will finally be in the hands of a new Palestinian government that serves its PEOPLE.”

What Is the Board of Peace?

The Board of Peace is the international body established to oversee Gaza’s political transition following the war. According to the agreement, it will supervise the creation of new governing institutions, coordinate reconstruction efforts, and verify implementation of the disarmament process.

The proposed framework calls for a National Committee to assume responsibility for governing Gaza while working alongside an International Stabilization Force. A new Palestinian police force would eventually replace armed militant organizations as the primary security authority.

The Board of Peace says the agreement concludes months of negotiations aimed at establishing new governance, improving humanitarian conditions, rebuilding Gaza’s economy, and creating long-term security for both Palestinians and Israelis.

How the Tentative Agreement Would Work

According to the draft agreement, Hamas and other Palestinian factions have accepted a framework that would eventually lead to the surrender of their weapons.

The process would begin with the deployment of a National Committee and an International Stabilization Force into Gaza. Weapons would first be inventoried and placed into storage under international observation before heavier weapons are gradually decommissioned.

The agreement reportedly requires a detailed implementation roadmap to be completed within 14 days, although extensions are possible if approved by the international verification body and all participating parties.

The proposal also requires all military activity inside Gaza to cease as the process unfolds.

One important provision is that the weapons would not be handed directly to Israel or any other foreign government. Instead, the National Committee would become the sole Palestinian authority responsible for maintaining custody of the weapons during the transition.

Hamas Says Disarmament Depends on Israel

Although Hamas has agreed to the framework, its officials made clear that the organization is attaching significant conditions to any actual disarmament.

Ghazi Hamad, a member of Hamas’s negotiating delegation, acknowledged the difficulty of the negotiations.

“These negotiations were difficult and hard, and we tried to reach the best possible formula that was achievable.”

However, he also warned that Hamas would not move forward if Israel failed to meet its obligations.

According to Hamad, Hamas will only implement the agreement if Israeli forces withdraw from Gaza and meaningful reconstruction begins.

Hamas officials have also stated that they are prepared to transfer their weapons to the new technocratic governing body only after Israel ends hostilities and leaves the territory.

In other words, Hamas is not proposing unconditional disarmament. Its commitment is directly tied to Israel fulfilling its own obligations under the agreement.

Israel Would Also Face Major Obligations

Under the proposed framework, Israel would gradually withdraw its military forces from Gaza as Hamas completes each phase of disarmament.

Trump said Israeli forces would eventually be replaced by the International Stabilization Force working alongside the new Palestinian police force.

The phased nature of the proposal is intended to ensure that neither side fully commits before the other fulfills its obligations. That arrangement may not satisfy many Israelis.

For Israel, the central concern is trust. Hamas carried out the October 7 attack after years of previous ceasefires and agreements. Many Israelis remain deeply skeptical that the group would permanently abandon armed resistance or comply with every phase of the plan.

At the time of the announcement, Israeli officials had not publicly commented on the agreement.

Questions About Verification Remain

Even supporters of the negotiations acknowledge that signing an agreement is only the first step. Nickolay Mladenov, the Board of Peace’s high representative for Gaza, said the agreement followed months of difficult diplomacy.

“There were several points when I did not believe we would make it.”

He cautioned that implementation would determine whether the agreement succeeds.

“Implementation and verification have to be real. Withdrawal must move in lockstep with decommissioning.”

Military analyst Nidal Abu Zaid also pointed to language in the agreement referring to “inventory and storage” rather than direct disarmament, suggesting that the wording may have been carefully negotiated to make the proposal acceptable to Palestinian factions.

A Diplomatic Victory With Significant Risks

The agreement does not end the conflict, and few observers expect the path ahead to be easy. Hamas has repeatedly been accused over the years of failing to honor previous commitments, making skepticism understandable.

Still, supporters of the negotiations argue that persuading Hamas to formally accept a documented process for relinquishing its weapons is itself a meaningful diplomatic achievement.

For the Trump administration, the agreement represents evidence that sustained negotiations can produce movement even in one of the world’s most difficult conflicts. Whether Hamas ultimately follows through remains uncertain, but if negotiations continue successfully, the phased structure of the agreement may provide leverage that did not exist before.

That makes the announcement significant even as many of the hardest questions remain unanswered. The breakthrough is not peace itself, but it may be the first step toward testing whether peace can finally be enforced rather than merely promised.