Gaza's Demilitarization: Trump's Claim vs. Hamas's Firm Denial

Key Takeaways

• Former President Trump and envoy Steve Witkoff asserted Hamas would disarm as a core requirement of the next phase of the Gaza framework.

• Senior Hamas official Moussa Abu Marzouk vehemently denied any agreement to surrender weapons, stating the issue has not been discussed with the U.S. or mediators.

• Washington's demilitarization plan includes an internationally funded buyback program, international monitoring, and a U.S.-led "Board of Peace" transitional administration.

• Hamas has historically treated disarmament as a "red line" and maintains control over parts of Gaza, arguing that disarmament would not be achieved through talks alone.

• The fundamental disagreement on demilitarization threatens to impede the progress of phase-two negotiations for a lasting resolution in Gaza.

The Disputed Claim

During a White House cabinet meeting, former President Donald Trump declared that "it looks like" Hamas is "going to disarm." His Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, echoed this sentiment, stating with certainty that the group would "give up their AK-47s," framing the disarmament as an inevitable outcome. This pronouncement came as Washington continued to push for a second-phase Gaza framework, where the demilitarization of Hamas is posited as a fundamental prerequisite. Trump's remarks also touched upon alleged cooperation from Hamas in locating and returning the bodies of deceased hostages, an assertion not corroborated by Israeli authorities in the same context. The confidence exuded by the former President and his envoy suggests a firm expectation within their diplomatic circles that this major concession from Hamas is either imminent or already implied within ongoing discussions.

Hamas's Firm Rejection

The optimism from the American side was swiftly and decisively countered by senior Hamas official Moussa Abu Marzouk. Speaking on Al Jazeera, Abu Marzouk categorically denied any agreement to surrender weapons, emphasizing that the topic of disarmament had "not for a single moment" been discussed with Hamas, neither by the United States nor by any mediating parties. He reiterated that Hamas had "not discussed the weapons yet," and that direct dialogue on this critical issue had not taken place. While acknowledging that negotiations would be the appropriate venue to debate "which weapons will be removed, what will be removed, [and] how they will be removed," Abu Marzouk strongly argued that a group that has endured two years of conflict without disarming would not be swayed by talks alone. He underscored Hamas's continued governance in areas of Gaza not under IDF control, suggesting their capacity to influence operations within the Strip without their consent.

Washington's Framework for Demilitarization

The United States has consistently presented demilitarization as a cornerstone of any lasting peace in Gaza. A recent briefing to the U.N. Security Council outlined Washington's vision, describing a process designed to put weapons "permanently beyond use" through an agreed mechanism "supported by an internationally funded buyback and reintegration program," all under international monitoring. This framework reportedly builds upon a ceasefire deal brokered in October, linking further Israeli troop withdrawals to Hamas relinquishing its weaponry. The plan also includes a U.S.-led "Board of Peace" transitional administration slated to operate through 2027, with the authority to deploy a temporary International Stabilization Force. A U.S. official, speaking in late January, further detailed expectations for Hamas to disarm, connecting the process to an amnesty framework that would include safe passage out of Gaza for members opting to leave under a comprehensive 20-point plan. The scale of the challenge is highlighted by Israel's UN ambassador, who estimated Hamas's arsenal to include tens of thousands of Kalashnikov rifles and roughly 60,000 assault rifles.

Historical Stance and Current Stakes

The current dispute unfolds as phase-two talks are set to commence, following the identification of the last Israeli hostage's remains, Ran Gvili, held for over 840 days. Trump explicitly framed demilitarization as the subsequent deliverable after the return of all hostages. However, Hamas has historically maintained a rigid stance against disarmament. In April 2025, the group notably termed the idea a "red line" in earlier negotiations, signaling its firm opposition. The stark contradiction between Washington's public assertions and Hamas's unequivocal denials establishes a challenging environment for detailed discussions on phase two, which are scheduled to begin this week. This fundamental disagreement on demilitarization remains a significant hurdle, potentially jeopardizing the prospects of a broader and more sustainable resolution.

Public Sentiment

Public discourse surrounding the proposed demilitarization of Hamas is sharply divided, reflecting the fundamental disagreement between the key actors. Supporters of the U.S. and Israeli positions generally view Hamas disarmament as an indispensable condition for stability and security in the region, arguing that "they will because they have no choice" and that weapons must be put "permanently beyond use" to prevent future conflicts. This perspective often aligns with the belief that international pressure and a comprehensive framework can compel Hamas to relinquish its military capabilities. Conversely, voices aligned with Hamas and its sympathizers assert that such demands are unrealistic and constitute an infringement on their sovereignty and resistance. They emphasize that "Hamas never agreed to surrender its weapons" and that "disarmament was never raised directly," portraying the U.S. claims as unfounded or premature. This viewpoint suggests that demanding disarmament upfront without addressing underlying grievances or offering substantial political concessions is a non-starter, and that "a group not disarmed after two years of war would not be disarmed by talks alone."

Conclusion

As detailed negotiations for phase two of the Gaza framework begin, the chasm between Washington's expectations and Hamas's stated position on disarmament remains profound. While former President Trump and his envoy project confidence in Hamas relinquishing its weapons, senior Hamas leadership firmly denies any such commitment or even direct discussions on the matter. The U.S. has laid out a comprehensive plan involving international monitoring and a buyback program, yet Hamas views disarmament as a "red line." This impasse poses a significant challenge to achieving a lasting ceasefire and a broader resolution, suggesting that the path to demilitarization, if it is to occur, will require extensive, perhaps unprecedented, diplomatic maneuvering beyond what has been publicly articulated thus far.