Israel, Hamas Disarmament Reports Leave Major Questions Unanswered

Israel and Hamas are reportedly moving closer to understandings on the next phase in Gaza, but the available accounts do not show that they have agreed on what disarmament would require or how it would be enforced.

The Board of Peace said Thursday that negotiations were “continuing and making progress.” Its official description links the dismantling of Hamas’s military capabilities to its removal from power and reciprocal Israeli steps.

“The roadmap for implementing the agreement includes the dismantling of all weapons, heavy and light, without exception, alongside the destruction of the tunnels, weapons depots and weapons-production facilities,” the Board said.

Hamas would also be excluded from governing Gaza “either openly or behind the scenes.” Full authority would pass to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza under the principle of “one authority, one law and one weapon.”

The plan would be carried out in stages. “Each step by one side enables the next step by the other,” the Board said, without specifying which Israeli action would follow each stage of Hamas’s compliance.

Hamas-linked accounts describe a narrower arrangement. Palestinian sources have spoken of transferring or storing weapons under an agreed Palestinian mechanism, while Reuters reported that Hamas was open to placing heavy weapons under the control of a Palestinian body.

Those reports leave it unclear whether Hamas has agreed to give up rifles and other light weapons. Egyptian sources also said the sides were still negotiating which tunnels, facilities and other military sites Hamas would have to dismantle.

Israeli sources described a broader deal, saying Hamas had agreed to give up both heavy and light weapons, reveal tunnel locations and accept strict monitoring. One source said “the direction appears positive,” adding that any agreement would be “strict and detailed, with no tricks and no compromises.”

The Israeli government has not formally confirmed that Hamas accepted those terms, while Hamas has not issued an official statement endorsing the Board of Peace’s complete-disarmament formula.

The indirect talks are being conducted through mediators from Egypt, Qatar and Turkey. Palestine Al-Youm, a television channel affiliated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad, reported that an announcement could be issued Thursday, but the Board provided no timetable and did not say a final agreement had been reached.

Major questions remain unanswered. The technocratic committee is expected to govern Gaza, and Hamas-linked reports say heavy weapons could be placed under a Palestinian body. But it remains unclear whether that committee would actually receive or control the weapons, whether they would be destroyed or stored, and who would verify the destruction of tunnels and weapons facilities.

The withdrawal provisions are also unclear. Hamas is demanding a complete Israeli withdrawal and an end to Israeli strikes and targeted killings. Israeli sources say withdrawal would follow verified disarmament, but it is not known whether Israel would leave every position or retain a buffer zone.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir rejected the negotiations. “With Nazis, you speak only through gun sights, and in no other way,” he said. Ben Gvir argued that Israel must not halt targeted killings or sign an agreement with Hamas through mediators, saying the only acceptable outcome was Hamas’s destruction and the encouragement of emigration from Gaza.

Yisrael Beytenu chairman Avigdor Liberman also opposed the reported framework. “Any agreement with Hamas is a return to the same failed conception that brought the State of Israel to the October 7 massacre,” he said. “Instead of reaching understandings with Hamas, Hamas must be eliminated.”

Negotiators must now reconcile the definitions of disarmament, establish a verification and enforcement mechanism, and agree on the sequence connecting Hamas’s obligations to an Israeli withdrawal. Israel would then have to approve any final text, while Hamas would have to publicly accept terms that go further than the arrangement described by Hamas-linked sources.

The talks may be advancing, but the public statements do not yet show that Israel and Hamas agree on what disarmament requires, who will enforce it or when either side must begin carrying it out.