In late September 2025, President Donald Trump unveiled a comprehensive 20-point peace plan aimed at ending the war in Gaza. The proposal outlined a phased approach: an immediate ceasefire, full release of Israeli hostages (living and deceased), partial Israeli military withdrawals, a surge in humanitarian aid, handover of governance to independent Palestinian technocrats, followed by demilitarization of Hamas and other factions, reconstruction, and a potential pathway to Palestinian self-determination. Israel, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, largely accepted the framework (with reservations on certain long-term elements like statehood). Hamas responded in early October 2025 with a carefully worded statement that enabled a fragile ceasefire but fell short of full endorsement.
Hamas explicitly agreed to release all remaining hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners and to hand over administrative control of Gaza to a body of independent technocrats or a broader Palestinian national framework. These concessions facilitated the initial phase of the deal, including a ceasefire that took effect around October 2025 and partial implementation of hostage exchanges and aid flows by early 2026.
However, Hamas’s response was widely characterized as a “yes, but” qualified acceptance. Senior officials, including Mousa Abu Marzouk, emphasized focus on the plan’s first nine points—related to ending hostilities, aid, and basic governance—while describing other elements as “unrealistic” and in need of further negotiation. Critically, Hamas skirted or outright rejected several core provisions essential to the plan’s long-term vision of a deradicalized, terror-free Gaza.
Disarmament and Demilitarization: The Central Sticking Point
The most significant omission—and a non-starter for Israel and the U.S.—was Hamas’s refusal to commit to full disarmament. Trump’s plan required Hamas and other factions to decommission weapons, destroy tunnels and offensive infrastructure (including production facilities), and submit to a monitored demilitarization process, potentially including an internationally funded buyback and reintegration program. Hamas has consistently maintained that it never agreed to surrender its arms, viewing them as essential for “resistance” and “self-defense.” Officials have stated that disarmament was never properly negotiated or raised directly in initial talks.
Into 2026, as the plan moved into its second phase, Hamas continued to contradict U.S. and Israeli assertions of agreement on this issue. A senior official claimed in January 2026 that “we never agreed to disarm,” and the group has been reported reasserting control in parts of Gaza, including tax collection. Mediators, including Trump’s “Board of Peace,” presented a formal phased disarmament proposal in Cairo as recently as March 2026, but Hamas has been weighing it amid regional tensions (such as conflicts involving Iran) without clear acceptance. Israel has warned that reconstruction will not proceed without demilitarization, and failure could lead to renewed operations.
No Future Role in Governance and Rejection of International Oversight
While Hamas signaled willingness to cede direct rule, it has insisted on participation through a “comprehensive Palestinian national framework” involving itself and other factions, implying retained influence. The Trump plan explicitly bars Hamas from any governance role, envisioning a technocratic, apolitical administration under international supervision. Hamas has rejected this as undermining Palestinian sovereignty.
Hamas also opposed key oversight mechanisms, including the U.S.-led “Board of Peace” (potentially chaired by Trump or involving figures like former British Prime Minister Tony Blair) and the deployment of international or Arab stabilization forces inside Gaza for demilitarization and security. Officials described these as forms of “international guardianship” or renewed occupation, unacceptable to the Palestinian people. Hamas has rejected any foreign military presence or bases, insisting on Palestinian/UN coordination limited to borders if any force is involved at all.
Timelines, Sequencing, and Broader Palestinian Demands
Additional points of contention included rapid implementation timelines, such as releasing all hostages within approximately 72 hours, which Hamas called unrealistic under prevailing conditions. The group sought broader negotiations on ending the “occupation,” full Israeli withdrawal, and Palestinian rights, framing these as requiring unanimous Palestinian consensus and alignment with international law rather than unilateral acceptance of the plan. Some elements were deferred to further talks with mediators.
Current Status and Fragility of the Deal
A UN Security Council resolution in November 2025 endorsed the framework, and Phase 1 achieved a pause in major fighting along with hostage releases. However, Phase 2—focused on demilitarization, full governance transition, and reconstruction—has stalled as of March 2026. Disputes over disarmament, Hamas’s reassertion of influence in some areas, and sequencing amid external conflicts have created ongoing tensions. Netanyahu has reiterated that Hamas must fully disarm or face consequences, while Trump administration mediators continue pushing proposals.
In essence, Hamas’s selective engagement secured a temporary halt to intense hostilities and leveraged hostage releases for prisoner swaps and aid. Yet by resisting the plan’s transformative demands—surrendering military power, forgoing governance influence, and accepting robust international supervision—it has kept the agreement precarious. Whether ongoing Cairo talks and pressure from the Board of Peace can bridge these gaps remains uncertain, with risks of escalation if core disagreements persist.
About The Author
