The core issue at the heart of the Gaza peace plan remains unresolved and arguably the most critical: who will take on the task of dismantling Hamas? Despite the White House’s comprehensive international blueprint for restoring stability to Gaza after conflict, one fundamental question has been left unanswered—how will Hamas be disarmed, prevented from ruling the Strip, and stopped from launching renewed attacks?
To this end, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi of Egypt have been invited to participate in a 'peace council' aimed at ending the ongoing violence in Gaza. While no formal agreements have been finalized yet, the proposed structure includes highly prominent global figures. It is anticipated that former U.S. President Donald Trump will spearhead the initiative, working alongside notable figures such as Britain’s ex-prime minister Tony Blair, the U.S. Secretary of State, and Jared Kushner, the long-time advisor and son-in-law of the former president.
Within this council, an executive team is expected to feature key figures like Special Envoy Steven Witkoff once again, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and World Bank President Ajay Banga. Each of these individuals is anticipated to oversee specific committees, each comprising about 15 members tasked with managing different aspects of the Palestinian authority established to govern Gaza. However, a significant question mark hangs over how this system would function practically on the ground, given the complex realities of Gaza.
The Palestinian leadership would be represented by Dr. Ali Shaath, a Gaza-born official related to former Palestinian minister Nabil Shaath from Ramallah. Interestingly, Saudi Arabia has quickly expressed support for the new peace framework. Nevertheless, there is no Saudi delegation included in any of the committees, a notable omission considering how critical international funding will be for rebuilding Gaza. The absence of a Saudi representative suggests that their role might be limited or conditional, especially since the Saudi Crown Prince emphasized that the framework is to be seen as temporary and called for the Israeli military to withdraw.
An essential aspect often overlooked is the plan’s attempt to bypass the perceived inefficiencies or frustrations associated with the United Nations' involvement in Gaza. The White House’s statement notably did not confront the elephant in the room: Hamas. This raises a pivotal question—will the terrorist organization be disarmed? How can the international community or the appointed officials guarantee that Hamas’s senior figures will accept disarmament without responding with violence?
Just recently, senior Hamas officials declared they have about 10,000 new volunteers ready, effectively indicating their intent to continue military actions. In Gaza, Hamas spokesperson Hazem Qassem has asserted that once a new Palestinian governing body enters the Strip, the existing government will dissolve, and even called for the rapid formation of a technocratic committee of Palestinians living outside Gaza. But here lies the critical caveat: Hamas has yet to agree to disarm, and there are no signs or signals indicating any willingness among its leaders to relinquish control. Without their consent, the path forward becomes extremely uncertain.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has responded cautiously, describing the peace initiative as mostly symbolic and asserting it does not alter the existing security conditions. He has set firm demands: the return of the body of the late soldier Ran Gvili and the complete dismantling of Hamas’s military infrastructure. Behind closed doors, U.S. officials reportedly are exploring options to declare Hamas disarmed—perhaps even storing its weapons—but the challenge remains: who will ensure Hamas’s compliance, and how?
Disarming Hamas is arguably one of the most complex and daunting tasks in the conflict. It’s unclear whether any individual, regardless of their seniority or diplomatic skill, possesses the capability or authority to confront a group as sophisticated and entrenched as Hamas. Even if Hamas agreed to surrender a portion of its arsenal and store some weapons elsewhere, the members of the peace committees or related bodies lack the ground-level experience and resources needed to manage these realities.
Meanwhile, Hamas continues its relentless operations, openly recruiting new fighters driven largely by the dire living conditions in Gaza—harsh weather, hunger, and economic hardship. It’s easy to see why many Palestinians might be compelled to join, especially when they see few alternatives. Current intelligence suggests Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad together have around 30,000 armed fighters resisting disarmament. On Israel’s side, Netanyahu has insisted that the Israeli Defense Forces will not withdraw from key strategic positions, including the Philadelphi Corridor, until the full demilitarization of Gaza is achieved. After all, a surprise attack could happen at any moment, given Hamas’s history of unpredictability.
The challenge of disarming Hamas, therefore, remains extraordinarily formidable. It’s unlikely anyone, no matter their title, has the precise knowledge or strength to outmatch Hamas’s operational capabilities. Even in a scenario where Hamas agreed to partial disarmament or to store their weapons elsewhere, none of the individuals involved in the peace committees appears equipped to handle the on-the-ground realities or enforce compliance. Hamas’s known brutal treatment of collaborators with Israel highlights the formidable security challenges involved.
The prevailing belief is that Hamas will not voluntarily surrender its weapons. But this leads to a critical question—who, if anyone, will compel Hamas to do so? The members of the oversight committees lack military or security experience, and their names alone suggest a team full of goodwill and optimism rather than combat expertise. Furthermore, Hamas's core identity as a movement committed to what it calls ‘liberation’ remains intact, with a fighting stance that persists in Netanyahu’s assessments. The question then arises: Will Hamas continue its insurgency and perhaps even escalate to attacking Palestinian Authority representatives to consolidate control of Gaza?
All of this underscores a stark reality: the path to disarmament and stability in Gaza is riddled with complex, potentially insurmountable hurdles. What do you think—can diplomacy truly succeed in disarming Hamas, or is the organization too deeply rooted in its military and ideological stance? Will external pressure or internal collapse force Hamas to surrender its weapons, or are we looking at a long-term standoff? Share your thoughts below.
