As reported by Khaled Abu Toameh of the Gatestone Institute, US President Donald J. Trump’s “Board of Peace” has presented Hamas with a written proposal outlining how the group could lay down its weapons, during meetings held in Cairo over the course of a week. According to the same reporting, the talks were attended by Nikolay Mladenov, described as the Trump-appointed envoy of the “Board of Peace” to the Gaza Strip, and Aryeh Lightstone, a US aide to Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff.
According to Gatestone Institute, Mladenov later published a message on X to mark the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr, stating that mediators had agreed on a framework intended to unlock reconstruction in Gaza, revive local communities, and move closer to a negotiated resolution of the Palestinian question. In that message, he said the framework required “full decommissioning by Hamas and every armed group, with no exceptions and no carve-outs,” and urged decision-makers to “make the right choice for the Palestinian people.”
As reported in the same article, Hamas leaders have repeatedly rejected demands to disarm and have described disarmament as a “red line.” According to Gatestone Institute’s account, Hamas officials have instead floated the idea of long-term truces lasting between five and ten years, rather than agreeing to total decommissioning of their weapons.
The article further states that, in the view of the author, Hamas has used previous ceasefires with Israel to rebuild, regroup and replenish its stock of weapons and tunnel infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. The piece characterizes the tone of the latest US proposal and Mladenov’s holiday message as resembling a plea for Hamas to disarm, and argues that relying on such an approach underestimates the movement’s armed strategy.
How has Hamas responded and what signals has it sent?
As reported by Gatestone Institute, Hamas has provided multiple public indications that it does not intend to lay down its weapons in the aftermath of the latest ceasefire in Gaza. The article notes that more than four months after the cessation of hostilities, Hamas is described as having tightened its grip on the enclave by cracking down on dissent, imposing taxes, deploying police and placing loyalists in senior governmental roles.
According to the same reporting, on the first day of Eid al-Fitr, masked members of Hamas’s armed wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, appeared on the streets of the Gaza Strip, an action portrayed as a signal that the group remains firmly entrenched. The article cites a social media post from a Hamas supporter on X stating that “Qassam resistance fighters” were distributing sweets to children after Eid prayers in Nuseirat camp and asserting that attempts to eliminate the “resistance” in Gaza had failed.
The piece reports that the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades also released a video during Eid, which showed fighters inside tunnels and included footage of clashes with Israeli forces. According to Gatestone Institute’s account, the Brigades pledged to continue fighting until the “complete liberation of Palestine,” a phrase the article interprets as referring to the elimination of Israel.
Gatestone Institute notes that Hamas’s 1988 charter calls for Israel’s destruction and rejects negotiated peace, describing jihad as the “only solution.” The article argues that, taken together, Hamas statements and actions demonstrate that the group views its weapons as central to its identity and long-term objectives rather than as negotiable assets.
Supporting details and expert perspectives
According to Gatestone Institute’s reporting, the Trump administration’s “Board of Peace” initiative has sought to use diplomatic engagement and economic incentives, including promises of reconstruction, as a pathway to achieve Hamas’s disarmament. The article describes Mladenov’s Eid message as presenting disarmament as a choice that Hamas could make in order to unlock an agreed framework for Gaza’s recovery.
The author, Khaled Abu Toameh, is identified by Gatestone Institute as an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem, with long-standing experience covering Palestinian politics and Israeli–Palestinian relations. Drawing on that experience, the piece contends that past ceasefires have been used by Hamas to rebuild its military capabilities rather than move toward demilitarization.
In its analysis, the article asserts that Hamas’s military infrastructure, including its arsenal and tunnel network, is treated by the movement as the foundation of its rule, ideology and survival. It compares calls for voluntary disarmament to asking a political party to vote itself out of existence, suggesting that, in this view, Hamas is unlikely to relinquish weapons absent sustained external pressure.
The same piece further contends that presenting disarmament as a goodwill gesture risks normalizing Hamas’s armed strategy. It argues that disarmament should instead be treated as a non-negotiable prerequisite for preventing future large-scale attacks similar to the October 7, 2023 assault on Israel led by Hamas fighters.
What are the implications and possible future developments?
According to Gatestone Institute’s reporting, the current approach pursued by Trump’s “Board of Peace” assumes that Hamas could be persuaded to disarm primarily through diplomacy and negotiations. The article warns that such a strategy may send a message that holding onto weapons long enough will eventually prompt international actors to seek compromise on the group’s terms.
The piece argues that, in the author’s assessment, Hamas will only disarm if it concludes that the costs of retaining weapons outweigh the benefits, and if it faces sustained political, economic and potentially military pressure. It suggests that treating disarmament as optional may fail to address Hamas’s stated commitment to continue what it calls jihad against Israel.
According to this analysis, international efforts that prioritize voluntary disarmament without strong enforcement mechanisms risk entrenching Hamas’s control in Gaza. The article implies that future diplomatic initiatives will likely confront the same fundamental obstacle so long as Hamas regards its armed capabilities as essential and non-negotiable.
In its closing assessment, Gatestone Institute’s article concludes that disarmament cannot be treated as a favor that Hamas grants, but as a condition that must be enforced to prevent further large-scale attacks. It frames the ongoing debate over the “Board of Peace” strategy as a test of how the international community chooses to respond to an armed movement that has repeatedly rejected calls to relinquish its weapons.
Without explicitly stating policy recommendations from governments, the reporting highlights the gap between the Trump administration’s diplomatic overtures and Hamas’s consistent rejection of disarmament, as documented in public statements and actions. The article underscores that this divergence will shape future negotiations over Gaza’s reconstruction and security framework.
