Hamas Rejects Disarmament, Insists on Gaza Security Role and Calls the ‘Peace Deal’ a Ceasefire
Hamas has publicly rejected the central security terms tied to the Gaza peace plan, insisting it will remain armed and keep a role in Gaza’s day-to-day control. Mohammed Nazzal, a senior politburo official, told Reuters the movement will not disarm and framed the agreement as a temporary truce rather than a permanent settlement. That stance undermines the American-brokered framework and forces a hard rethink about how to enforce any agreement.
Hamas has even defended summary punishments inside Gaza, with Nazzal saying, “There were always ‘exceptional measures’ during war, and those executed were criminals guilty of killing.”
The blueprint promised deradicalisation, humanitarian aid, a technocratic interim authority and an international stabilisation force to hold the line while Gaza rebuilt. Those were hard asks: weapons would need to be decommissioned, security responsibilities transferred, and independent monitors installed. If Hamas refuses those basics, the plan’s scaffolding collapses quickly.
Washington and regional partners laid out milestones including hostage returns, prisoner swaps, and a staged Israeli withdrawal tied to verifiable demilitarisation. The United States expected guarantors and a temporary International Stabilisation Force to train vetted Palestinian police and secure border areas. Nazzal’s refusal makes those checks meaningless unless they are backed with immediate, credible action.
There must be hard triggers: verification teams on the ground, explosives mapping and a vetted police force before any major aid flows. Donors and guarantors should condition funding on transparent decommissioning verified by independent observers.
If Hamas treats a ceasefire as a breathing space to regroup, international patience will be exhausted and broader measures must follow. Those measures should include rapid verification, targeted enforcement, and a refusal to rebuild under militant control.
“This is a transitional phase. Civilly, there will be a technocratic administration as I said. On the ground, Hamas will be present,” he said.
After the transitional phase, there should be elections, he said.
“I can’t answer with a yes or no. Frankly, it depends on the nature of the project.
The disarmament project you’re talking about, what does it mean? To whom will the weapons be handed over?”
If you can’t say “yes,” then you have abrogated the peace deal, and the war should continue.
“The IDF struck several terrorists who were seen exiting a tunnel shaft in the area of Khan Yunis and approaching the troops, the military said Friday.”
Additionally, several terrorists were identified exiting a tunnel shaft in the area of Rafah, also in southern Gaza, and opened fire toward IDF troops in the area.
The plan appears to have stalled after the Sharm El Sheikh press conference, and Hamas seems to be using pauses to reorganise. After years of brutal control, Gaza lacks the civic institutions needed to make self-governance credible. That vacuum means any reconstruction will be vulnerable to the same militant grip that produced the crisis.
If outside forces will not control weapons, borders and aid distribution, Hamas will quickly reclaim authority. The Republican view is blunt: words are worthless without teeth, and the United States should back promises with enforceable mechanisms. The coming days will test whether partners are prepared to enforce disarmament or accept a fragile ceasefire that leaves terror intact.
