The Gaza Disarmament Deal

On 30 July 2026, US President Donald Trump declared that his "Board of Peace" had reached a "HISTORIC agreement for the COMPLETE DISARMAMENT of Hamas and all other armed groups in Gaza." The announcement, posted on Truth Social in characteristic capitals, described the deal as "a monumental step toward lasting PEACE and SECURITY" in a region that has known neither for decades.

The agreement, if implemented, would require Hamas to surrender its weapons over approximately eight months, allow the destruction of its vast tunnel network beneath Gaza, and accept the authority of a new Palestinian security force backed by an international stabilisation force. In return, Israeli forces would withdraw from Gaza as disarmament was completed, military operations would cease, and reconstruction of the devastated territory could begin.

The reaction was immediate — and deeply divided. Trump described the deal as a breakthrough comparable to the Camp David Accords. Critics called it a fantasy dressed up as diplomacy. Hamas official Ghazi Hamad confirmed that "difficult" negotiations had produced an agreement, but added a crucial caveat: "We will not take any steps regarding disarmament before Israel withdraws from the Gaza Strip." Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir called the plan "unacceptable."

The gap between what was announced and what each side appears to have agreed to is significant — and it lies at the heart of the question that dominates the region: can a deal that requires mutual trust succeed between parties that have none?

To understand the significance of the disarmament agreement, you need to understand the war that made it necessary.

On 7 October 2023, Hamas launched an unprecedented attack on southern Israel, killing approximately 1,200 people and taking more than 250 hostages. The attack was the deadliest day for Jewish people since the Holocaust and shocked the world with its scale and brutality.

Israel responded with a massive military operation in Gaza that has continued, in various forms, for nearly three years. The campaign has caused extraordinary destruction. More than 60,000 Palestinians have been killed, according to Gaza health authorities. Much of Gaza's infrastructure — hospitals, schools, residential buildings, water systems — has been destroyed or severely damaged. More than 1.9 million of Gaza's 2.2 million residents have been displaced, many multiple times.

The humanitarian crisis has been described by the United Nations as among the worst in the world. Food insecurity, disease, and lack of medical care have compounded the direct effects of military operations. International courts have opened investigations into potential war crimes committed by both sides.

A ceasefire was eventually reached in October 2025, brokered by the United States, Egypt, and Qatar. Under the first phase, most hostages were released in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. But the ceasefire remained fragile, with sporadic violations by both sides, and the fundamental questions — the future governance of Gaza, the status of Hamas, and the conditions for lasting peace — remained unresolved until the disarmament announcement.

Even if both sides genuinely want the disarmament deal to succeed — which is far from certain — the practical challenges of implementation are enormous.

The most fundamental challenge is verification. How do you confirm that an armed group has actually surrendered all of its weapons? Hamas has spent decades building a military infrastructure that includes thousands of rockets, small arms, anti-tank missiles, explosive devices, and an extensive tunnel network estimated to stretch for hundreds of kilometres beneath Gaza. Much of this infrastructure is hidden underground, in buildings, and in locations that even Israeli intelligence may not be aware of.

The agreement calls for an independent verification body and an international stabilisation force, but the details remain vague. Who would conduct the verification? What access would they have? What happens if hidden weapons are discovered after disarmament is declared complete? Historical precedents are not encouraging — disarmament agreements in Northern Ireland, Colombia, and Libya all faced significant verification challenges, and in several cases, armed groups retained hidden weapons.

The sequencing problem is equally difficult. The deal envisions a phased process: Hamas disarms, international forces deploy, Israeli forces withdraw. But each step depends on the previous one being completed satisfactorily — and the definition of "satisfactorily" is itself contested. Israel wants complete, verified disarmament before any withdrawal. Hamas wants withdrawal before any disarmament. The gap between these positions is the space in which the deal could collapse.

Perhaps most importantly, disarmament addresses the military dimension of the conflict but not the political one. Even if every weapon in Gaza were surrendered tomorrow, the underlying grievances — occupation, self-determination, security, sovereignty — would remain. Without addressing these root causes, many analysts argue, any peace will be temporary.

The Gaza disarmament deal, whatever its ultimate fate, has forced a conversation about what genuine, lasting peace in the region would actually require. The answer, according to most scholars of the conflict, goes far beyond weapons.

First, it would require a political settlement that addresses the fundamental question of Palestinian statehood. The international consensus — supported by the United Nations, the European Union, and most countries in the world — is that lasting peace requires the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Israel's current government rejects this, and successive US administrations have been unable or unwilling to push for it.

Second, it would require accountability and justice. The scale of destruction in Gaza — tens of thousands of civilians killed, an entire territory reduced to rubble — cannot simply be forgotten. For Palestinians, any peace that does not acknowledge what they have suffered will feel like defeat, not resolution. For Israelis, any peace that does not address the trauma of 7 October will feel equally hollow.

Third, it would require sustained international commitment. The reconstruction of Gaza alone will cost tens of billions of dollars and take decades. International donors will need to fund this reconstruction, international forces will need to maintain security, and international mediators will need to remain engaged through the inevitable setbacks and crises that will occur along the way.

The disarmament agreement is, at best, the first step on a very long road. Whether it leads to genuine peace or becomes another failed promise in a conflict that has consumed generations depends on decisions that have not yet been made — by leaders in Jerusalem, Ramallah, Washington, and capitals around the world. The people of Gaza, who have endured more suffering than almost any population on Earth in recent years, are watching and waiting.