US-backed Gaza plan requires Hamas disarmament for lasting ceasefire

Crucially, the proposal attempts to sequence political, military and humanitarian steps together. Disarmament is not just a security measure; it is tied directly to reconstruction, governance and aid.

The proposal sets out a two-phase disarmament process. In the first 90 days, Hamas would be required to hand over its heavy weapons, including rockets, missile launchers and parts of its tunnel infrastructure, as well as provide detailed maps of its underground network.

The second phase would involve the gradual surrender of lighter weapons, such as assault rifles. This process would begin in southern Gaza and move northwards, with each cleared zone transitioning to Palestinian and international control.

A “buy-back” scheme is also under consideration, offering financial incentives and employment opportunities to militants who give up their personal weapons. Altogether, the process could take up to eight months, a significant departure from Israel’s longstanding demand for immediate, total disarmament. According to officials cited by The New York Times, this phased approach reflects pressure from mediators who see an all-at-once model as unrealistic.

Despite the structure of the plan, several major challenges remain. First, there is the question of political will. Sources cited by Haaretz suggest that key regional actors, including Qatar and Turkey, are not exerting sufficient pressure on Hamas. Without credible consequences for rejection, the proposal may lack leverage.

Second, there are legal and institutional uncertainties. Critics argue that the plan does not clearly align with existing Palestinian Authority legal frameworks, raising questions about the legitimacy of the new governing bodies and police force. Others counter that international backing, including reference to a UN Security Council resolution, provides sufficient legal grounding.

Third, there is the issue of funding. While US President Donald Trump has spoken of mobilising billions for Gaza’s reconstruction, officials say the technocratic committee currently lacks the resources to begin meaningful work. Donor countries appear reluctant to release funds until Hamas is fully disarmed, creating a Catch-22 dynamic.

Finally, the timeline itself introduces risk. Over eight months, political realities could shift, including the elections in Israel or changes in regional dynamics, undermining the plan’s assumptions.

This remains the central question and the answer, for now, appears doubtful. Hamas has reportedly shown some openness to relinquishing heavy weapons in talks with Arab mediators. However, it has insisted on retaining lighter arms, arguing they are necessary for self-defence and internal security.

More fundamentally, disarmament strikes at the heart of Hamas’s identity. As a movement built around armed resistance to Israel, giving up its weapons would represent a profound transformation, if not an existential shift.

As Palestinian analyst Akram Atallah told The New York Times, the proposal effectively “calls for the end of Hamas as we know it”. From Hamas’s perspective, it offers disarmament without a clear pathway to a Palestinian state, a trade-off many within the group are unlikely to accept.

Instead, analysts expect Hamas to respond with a counterproposal designed to delay or dilute the terms, while avoiding a return to full-scale war.

For civilians inside Gaza, the picture is more complex. Many residents reportedly support a deal that would enable reconstruction and stabilisation, even if it involves Hamas stepping back. The promise of increased aid, functioning services and reduced violence carries significant weight after months of devastation.

At the same time, there are signs that little has changed on the ground. Armed Hamas personnel remain visible across Gaza, reinforcing perceptions that the group is not preparing to relinquish control.

This gap between diplomatic negotiations and lived reality highlights a broader tension: while international actors are focused on long-term frameworks, conditions on the ground remain fragile and volatile.

The Board of Peace proposal represents one of the most detailed attempts yet to link ceasefire, governance and reconstruction in Gaza. It reflects a growing consensus among international mediators that any lasting solution must address not just security, but also political authority and economic recovery.

Yet the plan’s success depends on factors that remain unresolved: Hamas’s willingness to fundamentally change its role, sustained pressure from regional actors, and credible guarantees of reconstruction funding.

For now, the proposal sits in a familiar space, ambitious in design, but uncertain in execution.

READ MORE 

Hamas Considering Disarmament Plan From Trump’s Board of Peace, Officials Say (Paywall, The New York Times) 

Gaza Board of Peace, mediators, submit to Hamas proposal for gradual disarmament (Haaretz) 

Hamas given proposal for gradual weapon handover in months-long process — officials (Times of Israel)