Hamas Accepts US-Backed Disarmament Plan as Trump Unveils Gaza Peace Roadmap

Palestinian group Hamas

Hamas Accepts US-Backed Disarmament Plan as Trump Unveils Gaza Peace Roadmap

A landmark agreement could reshape the future of Gaza, but Israel’s official response remains pending as key details hang in the balance.

In a significant diplomatic breakthrough, the Palestinian group Hamas has formally accepted a United States-backed proposal aimed at ending the 10-month-long war in the Gaza Strip. The agreement, unveiled by U.S. President Donald Trump, outlines a phased roadmap that includes the group’s complete disarmament and a gradual withdrawal of Israeli troops from the territory. The announcement, made on Friday, marks one of the most substantial developments since the October ceasefire. However, the deal remains conditional, and Israel has not yet issued an official response, leaving the international community in a state of cautious optimism.

Under the proposed framework, Hamas has agreed to surrender its weapons to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) , a Palestinian governing body established under the Trump-administration-led Board of Peace initiative. The disarmament process is designed to be phased and verifiable, beginning with an initial phase where Hamas police forces are expected to hand over light weapons to the NCAG within the first two weeks. This would be followed by a second, more extensive phase lasting between 200 and 350 days, during which the full decommissioning of heavy weapons, tunnels, depots, and weapons production facilities would take place under strict international oversight. The roadmap follows a “zero trust” model, meaning each phase of disarmament must be independently verified before the next step of Israeli military withdrawal can proceed. Echoing this cautious approach, Nickolay Mladenov, the Board of Peace’s High Representative for Gaza, emphasized that “withdrawal must move in lockstep with decommissioning,” underscoring the need for synchronized and carefully monitored implementation.

For Hamas, the decision represents a difficult but necessary concession aimed at alleviating the suffering of Palestinian civilians. Ghazi Hamad, a member of the group’s negotiating team, described the move as a sacrifice made for the sake of the people in Gaza, to save them from continued killing and displacement. He further clarified that Israel will not intervene in the disarmament process, which will be solely managed by the NCAG. However, a senior Hamas official stressed that full implementation of the agreement depends on Israel fulfilling its prior commitments under the initial ceasefire, which include ending all military attacks, withdrawing forces to October 2025 positions, and significantly increasing humanitarian aid deliveries into the besieged territory.

READ ALSO:

As of this report, Israel’s government has not formally responded to the proposal, and its position remains a critical unknown. An Israeli political source indicated that the current framework does not “satisfactorily” address Israel’s core demand for the complete demilitarisation of the Gaza Strip. The source also reiterated that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent meeting with President Trump in Washington did not include discussions on the Gaza conflict, casting doubt on the level of Israeli engagement with the plan. Another major sticking point is the so-called “Yellow Line” buffer zone, with an Israeli official insisting there would be no withdrawal from this area before Hamas is fully disarmed. Despite these reservations, the U.S. has expressed confidence that Israel will ultimately adhere to the 20-point plan, with one official noting that President Trump would be “very, very disappointed” if it did not.

The agreement was brokered by a coalition of international mediators, including Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey, who have been engaged in months of difficult negotiations. Egypt’s state-linked Al-Qahera News reported that Cairo is expected to host another meeting to advance discussions on the second phase of the truce, signaling continued diplomatic momentum. A diplomatic source familiar with the negotiations emphasized the roadmap’s commitment to unity and order, stating that “there will be no exceptions for certain weapons or certain people,” and that the goal is to establish “one authority, one law, one weapon.” The roadmap also includes a verification mechanism designed to monitor compliance by both parties, ensuring accountability and transparency throughout the entire process.

Despite the diplomatic progress, hostilities have persisted on the ground, underscoring the fragility of the current situation. Gaza’s health authorities reported that Israeli airstrikes on Thursday killed at least four people, including two children, even as negotiations advanced. The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains dire, with widespread displacement, acute food insecurity, and a collapsing healthcare system that has left thousands without access to basic medical care. The success of the agreement hinges not only on political will from all parties but also on tangible, on-the-ground improvements in the daily lives of Palestinian civilians, many of whom have been displaced multiple times since the conflict began.

The focus now shifts from negotiation to implementation, with the Board of Peace confirming in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that the NCAG will “soon begin a phased transition toward full authority.” Key milestones to watch include Israel’s official response to the proposal, which could shape the entire trajectory of the deal; the actual start of the weapons handover process; the deployment of an International Stabilization Force to work alongside a new Palestinian police force; and meaningful progress on humanitarian aid and reconstruction efforts that could help stabilize the region. Each of these steps carries significant weight and will be closely monitored by the international community.

This agreement represents a rare moment of compromise in a conflict marked by decades of violence and deep-seated mistrust. However, the path forward is fraught with challenges, and the “zero trust” approach reflects the profound suspicions that persist on both sides. Any misstep, whether a delay in weapons handover or a disagreement over troop withdrawal, could unravel the entire framework and plunge the region back into conflict. For now, the world watches and waits, with hopes pinned on a process that remains as fragile as it is historic. As Mladenov aptly put it, “What happens next matters even more. Implementation and verification have to be real.”