Loading...
A tough road to Hamas disarmament
Whether US President Donald Trump’s announcement of the “complete disarmament” of Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza proves to be the breakthrough he claims it will be depends on all parties honouring their commitments. The US President has said Hamas’s disarmament would pave the way for a Palestinian committee to take over governance in Gaza and for Israel’s military withdrawal, as envisaged under his 20-point peace plan, which Hamas and Israel agreed to nearly 10 months ago. That Hamas will agree to disarm is, based on current evidence, highly improbable. Whatever legitimacy it still commands is rooted in its use of terror as resistance against Israel’s illegal occupation.
The first challenge is one of sequencing: Who makes the first concession? Shortly after Trump’s announcement, Hamas said it would not move on disarmament before Israel withdraws from the Strip. The second concerns the weapons. Hamas says it has agreed to transfer its arsenal to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), a body of independent Palestinian technocrats supervised by the Board of Peace. Israel has maintained that the “full demilitarisation” of Gaza is a “non-negotiable” precondition for any military withdrawal. Indeed, the 13 members of the NCAG have so far been barred by Israel from entering Gaza. Matters are further complicated by opposition from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing allies, who have gone beyond the government’s stated war aims by advocating permanent Israeli security control over Gaza and the re-establishment of Jewish settlements there. How far Netanyahu, with an eye on the next election, is willing — or able — to override them will depend on the pressure Trump is prepared to exert him.
Despite the ceasefire, Israel has continued to carry out airstrikes, while the humanitarian catastrophe unleashed by the war following Hamas’s October 7 terror attack has shown little sign of abating. Israel continues to restrict the entry of humanitarian aid into the Strip, and making the survival of the civilian population contingent on Hamas’s disarmament amounts to collective punishment. Whatever the fate of Trump’s peace plan, food, medicine and infrastructure material must be allowed to make their way to Gaza, and reconstruction must begin without delay. That should not be hijacked by either Israel or Hamas.
Overall Analysis
The editorial analyses the challenges surrounding the proposed disarmament of Hamas under US President Donald Trump‘s peace initiative for Gaza. It argues that although the proposal appears to be a significant diplomatic step, its success is uncertain because of deep political distrust, conflicting priorities, and the continuing humanitarian crisis. The editorial maintains a balanced approach by examining the responsibilities and actions of all stakeholders—Hamas, Israel, and the United States.
The editorial begins by introducing Trump’s claim that Hamas’s complete disarmament would lead to Israeli military withdrawal and the establishment of a Palestinian governing body in Gaza. However, the author immediately questions the feasibility of this proposal, arguing that Hamas derives much of its political influence from its armed resistance against Israeli occupation. This opening establishes a realistic rather than optimistic perspective, signalling that peace cannot be achieved through announcements alone.
The editorial then discusses the major political and diplomatic obstacles. It explains the problem of sequencing, where each side expects the other to make the first concession. Hamas insists that Israel should withdraw before surrendering its weapons, while Israel demands complete disarmament before any withdrawal. The article further highlights disagreements over who should control Hamas’s weapons and points to divisions within the Israeli government itself, particularly opposition from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s right-wing allies. By presenting these competing positions, the author demonstrates that the conflict is not merely military but also political and institutional, making negotiations extremely difficult.
In the final section, the editorial shifts from diplomacy to humanitarian concerns. It criticises the continuation of Israeli airstrikes despite the ceasefire and expresses concern over restrictions on humanitarian aid entering Gaza. The author argues that linking the survival of civilians to Hamas’s disarmament amounts to collective punishment, which raises serious humanitarian and ethical concerns. The editorial concludes by asserting that, irrespective of whether Trump’s peace plan succeeds, immediate humanitarian assistance and reconstruction should not be delayed or manipulated for political objectives.
Throughout the article, the language is measured, analytical, and evidence-based. Rather than favouring one side outright, the editorial evaluates the strategic calculations of each actor while consistently emphasising the importance of humanitarian principles and durable peace.
Important Vocabulary (5)
- Disarmament – the process of giving up or removing weapons.
- Sequencing – arranging actions in a particular order.
- Demilitarisation – the removal of military forces and weapons from an area.
- Contingent – dependent upon a particular condition being fulfilled.
- Abating – becoming less intense or severe.
Conclusion & Tone
The editorial concludes that achieving peace in Gaza requires much more than an agreement on paper. Deep mistrust between Hamas and Israel, political divisions, and conflicting conditions continue to obstruct meaningful progress. At the same time, humanitarian relief and reconstruction must proceed immediately and should not become bargaining tools in political negotiations.
Tone: Analytical, balanced, cautious, and humanitarian.
