Key Takeaways:
- Hamas has pledged to disarm, but since the ceasefire it has worked to preserve its security forces, political influence and military capabilities in Gaza.
- The Trump plan requires Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other armed factions to give up their independent weapons and military forces.
- Hamas’s statements and actions give Washington reason for skepticism, making independently verified disarmament more important than promises made at the negotiating table.
Hamas leaders told Jared Kushner what Washington wanted to hear on Sunday. During a meeting in Egypt, they told President Donald Trump’s adviser that Hamas remained committed to disarming and demilitarizing Gaza. Reports indicate that Kushner pressed Hamas to take tangible steps toward disarmament and made clear that Israel did not trust the group to follow through.
That is the right standard.
Kushner reinforced it after traveling to Israel the following day. After meeting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Kushner said Hamas officials had said “all the right things,” but added that it was “very hard to trust” the organization. He said progress in removing some Hamas weapons could begin within 30 days, while efforts to fill in Hamas tunnels could begin within 60 to 90 days.
Those timelines create measurable tests.
Since the ceasefire went into effect on October 10, 2025, Hamas has worked to preserve its military capabilities, security forces and political influence in Gaza. Its behavior does not look like that of an Islamist group preparing to meaningfully surrender its weapons or political power.
The Trump administration’s plan requires all armed factions in Gaza to disarm. A detailed version of the plan required groups such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) to participate. The document set out the principle of “one authority, one law, one weapon.”
President Trump announced on July 30 that the Board of Peace had reached a “historic agreement” for the “complete disarmament” of Hamas and all other armed groups in Gaza. The arrangement, however, remained tentative, with major questions over its terms and implementation still unresolved.
Hamas’s own words provide good reasons to question whether it intends to reach that point.
In April, Abu Obeida, the spokesperson for Hamas’s military apparatus, also known as the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, rejected demands that the organization surrender its weapons and said Hamas would not accept them “under any circumstances.”
Days earlier, Hamas had told mediators that it would not discuss giving up its weapons without guarantees of a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.
The facts on the ground raise even more questions.
In February, Hamas strengthened its control over Gaza. The group appointed five district governors with ties to its so-called military wing and replaced senior officials in ministries responsible for taxation and security.
Hamas also used violence to enforce its authority. A U.N. investigation documented executions, beatings, kneecappings and other extrajudicial punishments from August 2024 through January 2026. Investigators found Hamas-affiliated terrorists and police involved in cases targeting alleged Israeli collaborators, anti-Hamas activists and people affiliated with rival factions and armed groups.
Hamas has also tried to preserve much of its security apparatus, including efforts to incorporate roughly 10,000 members of its police force into the future Palestinian security structure, including hundreds from its internal security service.
When Hamas announced on July 6 that it would dissolve its government and transfer administration to Palestinian technocrats, the move did not necessarily mean surrendering real power. Hamas can give up government offices while preserving the networks and security forces that allow it to influence events in Gaza.
The same pattern appears in Hamas’s military activity. Giving up formal governing authority means little if the group continues preserving the forces and weapons that give it power on the ground.
Four Israeli defense officials told Reuters in May that Hamas was rebuilding its forces and manufacturing weapons during the ceasefire. This assessment directly conflicts with Hamas’s latest assurances that it intends to demilitarize.
A group preparing to disarm should surrender weapons and shut down military sites. A group rebuilding forces and manufacturing weapons preserves its ability to fight.
Hamas also has strong reasons to keep its guns. Giving them up would strip the organization of much of the power that allows it to dominate Gaza and would leave it vulnerable to Palestinian rivals. Anti-Hamas armed groups operating from Israeli-controlled territory behind the Yellow Line have said they intend to continue fighting Hamas.
Complete disarmament would therefore amount to organizational suicide for Hamas. The group would surrender not only the weapons it uses against Israel but also the military power it uses to deter or defeat Palestinian opponents.
Israel has recent experience with adversaries using conciliatory language while preparing for conflict. Israel’s public broadcaster, KAN News, reported that officials in one unnamed regional country advised another to reach an agreement with Israel as a tactical move to “lull” it while preparing for a larger confrontation, including the possibility of violating the agreement later. KAN drew a comparison to the period before October 7, when Yahya Sinwar publicly signaled an interest in calm while Hamas prepared for war. The report does not prove Hamas is pursuing the same strategy today, but it provides another reason to insist on actions rather than assurances.
The latest Kushner-Netanyahu meeting also failed to resolve the central dispute. Israel continues to demand Hamas disarm before reconstruction and further Israeli withdrawal, while Hamas has linked implementation to Israeli withdrawal and an end to attacks. The two sides did agree to establish a working group focused on disarmament.
That dispute leaves Hamas room to accept disarmament in principle while delaying the moment when it must surrender its weapons. Kushner should therefore hold Hamas and the other armed factions to measurable results, not diplomatic language. If weapons remain in Hamas hands, tunnels remain operational and the organization continues rebuilding its military capabilities, its actions will provide a clearer answer than anything its leaders tell American negotiators.
Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!
© Divuach Ne’eman R”A, 2025
