Within hours of President Donald Trump’s announcement that an agreement had been reached on Gaza, disagreements surfaced over two of its central provisions: the future of Hamas’s weapons and the timing of an Israeli military withdrawal from the enclave.
Trump said Thursday that the agreement would pave the way for an Israeli withdrawal and the deployment of an international force, adding that Israel had participated in drafting the plan and welcomed it. But Israel’s first official response made clear that any withdrawal would be contingent on the “genuine dismantling” of Hamas’s arsenal, while Hamas said it had not agreed to surrender its weapons, only to place them in storage under arrangements supervised by a Palestinian authority.
The dispute quickly appeared to extend beyond the mechanics of implementation to the agreement’s basic interpretation.
In Israel’s first public response following Trump’s announcement, a political source told local media that Israel had “once again made clear that there will be no withdrawal of Israeli military forces from the current Yellow Line without the genuine dismantling of Hamas’s weapons.”
The statement underscored the Israeli government’s continued commitment to its stated objective since the war began: stripping Hamas of its military capabilities. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly described that goal as a prerequisite for any “day after” arrangements in Gaza.
Hamas, however, offered a markedly different interpretation. Ghazi Hamad, a member of the group’s negotiating team, said Hamas had not agreed to dismantle or hand over its weapons. Instead, he said, the group had agreed to store them under the supervision of the technocratic committee expected to administer Gaza during the next phase.
He stressed that no steps regarding the weapons would be taken until Israel fulfilled the first phase of the agreement, beginning with a withdrawal from Gaza.
Palestinian sources also said the draft agreement calls for heavy weapons to be placed in storage and Hamas’s military infrastructure to be dismantled under international supervision. The weapons, they said, would remain under the authority of a future Palestinian government rather than being transferred to Israel or another Palestinian faction.
That distinction lies at the heart of one of the agreement’s most contentious issues.
While Israel speaks of complete disarmament and removing weapons from Gaza altogether, Hamas describes the arrangement as a transitional framework for managing its arsenal, linked to an Israeli withdrawal and the phased implementation of the agreement. The competing interpretations leave considerable room for differing readings of what the mediators actually secured.
Despite those differences, Palestinian political analyst and writer Ashraf al-Ajrami said the agreement represents a significant political shift.
Speaking to MBN, al-Ajrami said Hamas’s acceptance of the proposed framework removes what had been the principal obstacle to implementing the initiative. If carried out, he said, the agreement could open the way for Gaza’s recovery, reconstruction, and closer integration with the West Bank, creating conditions for a broader political process.
Al-Ajrami argued that the agreement’s success depends not only on Palestinian approval but also on Israel’s position. He said the Trump administration had thrown its full weight behind the initiative, meaning that even if Netanyahu’s government sought to obstruct it, it would face mounting pressure from Washington because the proposal has become closely identified with Trump and his administration.
That assessment, however, is not widely shared in Israel, where skepticism remains high over whether Hamas — designated a terrorist organization by the United States and several other countries — would honor any agreement involving its weapons.
Akram Hasson, deputy speaker of the Knesset and a close ally of Israel’s foreign minister, reflected that view, saying Israel trusted the United States and President Trump but not Hamas.
In an interview with MBN, Hasson said the initiative would ultimately be judged not by political declarations but by whether the Peace Council and international actors could enforce the disarmament provisions on the ground. Israel, he said, would wait for tangible steps before reconsidering its security posture or broader policy.
Opposition within Israel extends beyond doubts about whether the agreement can be implemented. Some members of the governing coalition reject the deal outright.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir denounced any understanding with Hamas, saying the only acceptable outcome for Israel is “the destruction of Hamas and encouraging migration from Gaza.” He rejected any agreement that would halt operations targeting Hamas members or allow the group any role in Gaza’s future.
Those positions underscore the political challenges Netanyahu could face if he moves forward with an agreement that clashes with the views of his right-wing coalition partners, even if it enjoys direct backing from the Trump administration.
The agreement also faces practical obstacles, including the issue of Hamas’s tunnel network. Mamdouh Jabr, a former Palestinian deputy foreign minister, said the tunnels could become a second major point of contention after the weapons issue, particularly given that much of Gaza has been reduced to rubble, making it extremely difficult to locate every tunnel.
In comments to MBN, Jabr said the issue could become even more problematic if Israel concluded that Hamas was concealing information about the tunnels, potentially prompting additional restrictions and security measures.
Mohamed Hegazy, a former Egyptian deputy foreign minister, offered a more optimistic assessment. He said the upcoming meetings in Cairo involving mediators from Egypt, the United States, Qatar, and Turkey signaled a transition from managing the war itself to shaping Gaza’s postwar order.
Still, Hegazy said the next phase would require clear implementation mechanisms and credible international guarantees, particularly regarding withdrawal timetables, security arrangements, reconstruction, preventing a return to hostilities, and international participation in security oversight “to ensure mutual compliance and prevent the agreement from collapsing at its first test on the ground.”
With the parties still divided on fundamental questions, the immediate battle appears less about implementing the agreement than about defining what it actually means. How that dispute is resolved may determine whether Trump’s announcement marks a genuine turning point in the war or becomes another chapter in a long history of understandings that ultimately foundered on conflicting interpretations and incompatible conditions.
Adapted and translated from the original Arabic.
