Trump claims Gaza breakthrough, but Hamas and Israel disagree over who must move first

President Donald Trump has announced what he described as a historic agreement for Hamas and other armed groups to disarm in Gaza, potentially clearing the way for an Israeli withdrawal and a new Palestinian civilian administration. The claim gained substance on July 31, 2026, when senior Hamas official Ghazi Hamad confirmed that the organization had accepted a conditional disarmament framework. However, Hamas says Israel must stop military operations and begin withdrawing before weapons are surrendered, while an Israeli official maintains that troops will remain until Hamas has genuinely disarmed. The opposing demands leave the agreement caught in the same sequencing dispute that has repeatedly obstructed efforts to turn the Gaza ceasefire into a lasting political settlement.

Trump said his Board of Peace had secured agreement on the complete disarmament of Hamas and other armed organizations, followed by an Israeli withdrawal and the transfer of security responsibilities to an international force and a newly established Palestinian administration. The announcement would represent an extraordinary breakthrough if implemented because Hamas has never previously accepted a detailed process for giving up its military capabilities. Yet CNN’s assessment emphasized that the political meaning of the agreement depends on its conditions, timetable and enforcement rather than the announcement alone.

Hamas is not presenting the agreement as an unconditional surrender. Hamad told CNN that disarmament would proceed only if Israel ends targeted killings, halts military operations, withdraws to the designated Yellow Line, allows increased humanitarian assistance and accepts the deployment of an International Stabilization Force. He also said Gaza’s new civilian administration must take control before the weapons process begins.

Israel has not formally endorsed the arrangement in public. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remained silent after Trump’s initial announcement, while an Israeli official said there would be no withdrawal from the Yellow Line until Hamas completed genuine disarmament. Trump later said Israel was satisfied with the framework and had helped develop it, but he did not explain whether weapons surrender or troop withdrawal would occur first.

Hamas disarmament would transform Gaza, but the agreement does not require an immediate surrender

The roadmap establishes a phased process rather than requiring Hamas to hand over every weapon at once. Under the published framework, Hamas and other Palestinian factions would transfer civilian governance and security responsibilities to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, a technocratic Palestinian body intended to operate independently from armed factions.

The proposed administration would operate according to a principle summarized as one authority, one law and one weapon. Police personnel would undergo vetting, military production facilities would be dismantled and heavy weapons, tunnels and ammunition depots would be decommissioned under international supervision.

Hamad indicated that Hamas police weapons would be handed to the new administration. He described a different arrangement for heavy weapons, saying they would be stored under the Palestinian committee’s supervision rather than necessarily destroyed immediately. That distinction is important because Israel may not consider monitored storage equivalent to complete disarmament.

The agreement therefore leaves room for conflicting interpretations. Trump’s description suggests that Hamas has accepted the elimination of its independent armed capability. Hamas appears to view the framework as a negotiated transfer of weapons linked to Israeli withdrawal, Palestinian governance and international guarantees. Israel is demanding verifiable disarmament before surrendering military control of territory.

Those differences are not minor drafting questions. They concern whether Hamas will permanently cease operating as an armed organization, who will control its weapons during the transition and what happens if either side concludes that the other has failed to meet an agreed milestone.

Israel and Hamas remain divided over whether withdrawal or disarmament happens first

The central obstacle is sequencing. Hamas says the agreement is a complete package and that weapons-related measures will not begin unless Israel implements its commitments. Those commitments include stopping attacks, beginning withdrawal, expanding humanitarian access and allowing the new Palestinian administration and international force to enter Gaza.

Israel’s position reverses that order. An Israeli political source said the Israeli military would not withdraw from its existing line unless Hamas had genuinely disarmed. Members of Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition have gone further by rejecting the proposed framework and arguing that military pressure should continue until Hamas is destroyed.

The contradiction produces a familiar diplomatic trap. Israel does not want to relinquish territory before confirming that Hamas can no longer rebuild its military infrastructure. Hamas does not want to surrender its weapons while Israeli forces remain in Gaza and retain the ability to resume large-scale operations.

The published roadmap attempts to solve that problem through synchronized phases and independent verification. Each stage would be completed before the next begins, while the International Stabilization Force would separate Israeli troops from areas controlled by the Palestinian administration and monitor compliance.

The international force would also help train Palestinian police, support humanitarian deliveries and supervise security arrangements during the transition. Israel has already approved a limited pilot deployment involving approximately 200 troops from Morocco and Uganda in part of Rafah, but any wider deployment would require further Israeli authorization.

That pilot suggests that portions of the plan have moved beyond general diplomacy. However, it does not prove that Israel has accepted full withdrawal or that Hamas has begun dismantling its military structure. The most politically difficult commitments remain ahead.

The new Palestinian administration and international force face an enormous credibility test

The National Committee for the Administration of Gaza is expected to assume responsibility for civilian government, public services and internal security. Its success would require Hamas to relinquish political control while Israel permits an independent Palestinian institution to operate across territory currently divided by military lines.

The administration would also inherit a devastated territory requiring extensive reconstruction, functioning hospitals, schools, water systems, electricity networks and civilian institutions. The Board of Peace and the Palestinian committee would supervise reconstruction under the roadmap, while international donors and governments would be expected to supply significant financial and logistical support.

The Board of Peace was created to oversee Gaza’s ceasefire, transition and reconstruction. Trump chairs the organization, which includes senior international political figures and representatives from participating countries. The United Nations Security Council previously recognized the framework and authorized a temporary stabilization force, giving the initiative international support but not eliminating concerns about accountability and Palestinian representation.

The new administration will need legitimacy among Palestinians as well as approval from Israel and international sponsors. A government viewed as externally imposed may struggle to recruit police, enforce weapons restrictions or gain public cooperation. Conversely, Israel may resist an administration it believes remains vulnerable to Hamas influence.

Verifying disarmament will be particularly difficult. Gaza contains underground tunnels, hidden weapons stores and informal armed networks that cannot be eliminated through declarations alone. International monitors would need meaningful access, reliable intelligence and the ability to investigate suspected violations without becoming participants in the conflict.

The roadmap also requires mechanisms for handling individual weapons, integrating or retiring existing police officers and dismantling military infrastructure. Any disagreement over whether a site, weapon or security unit violates the agreement could delay the next Israeli withdrawal and potentially restart hostilities.

Continued Israeli strikes show how easily the Gaza framework could collapse

Military activity has continued despite Trump’s announcement. An Israeli strike in central Gaza killed at least one person on July 31, according to local health officials, while Hamas demanded an end to Israeli operations before disarmament measures could proceed.

Continued violence presents both a practical and political threat to the agreement. Hamas can argue that it cannot surrender weapons while its members and Palestinian civilians remain exposed to Israeli strikes. Israel can argue that it must retain military freedom until Hamas demonstrates that its forces and infrastructure are being dismantled.

The roadmap calls for all parties to end military operations without delay as implementation begins. It also says Israel will withdraw in phases as the Palestinian administration gains territorial control and disarmament milestones are verified.

Every strike, rocket launch, targeted killing or disputed security incident could interrupt that process. The agreement therefore requires more than strategic consent from senior leaders. Commanders, fighters, police units and local armed groups must also comply with a complicated transition under conditions of deep mistrust.

Netanyahu faces additional pressure from far-right coalition partners who oppose ending military operations before Hamas is destroyed. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir rejected the framework, while other conservative ministers warned that Hamas could use a pause to reorganize.

Trump has attempted to overcome those doubts by saying the United States has an understanding with Israel and that Israeli officials helped with the agreement. He also indicated that he would be deeply disappointed if Israel failed to honor the broader peace plan. Those statements increase political pressure on Netanyahu but do not substitute for formal Israeli approval of the latest roadmap.

Trump’s Gaza announcement is a real diplomatic opening, but not yet a completed peace deal

The agreement is more substantial than a vague ceasefire proposal because it outlines governance, disarmament, international security, humanitarian assistance, reconstruction and phased Israeli withdrawal. Hamas has publicly acknowledged a conditional weapons process, and the Board of Peace has published implementation details.

It is nevertheless premature to describe the Gaza conflict as resolved. Hamas and Israel remain divided on the action that must come first, Netanyahu has not publicly endorsed the latest arrangement and Israeli coalition members are openly opposing it. Fighting has also continued while the parties debate implementation.

The agreement’s strongest feature is its attempt to connect disarmament and withdrawal through verified stages rather than demanding complete trust at the beginning. Its greatest weakness is that both sides can potentially block progress by claiming the other has failed to complete an earlier obligation.

A successful first phase would require an immediate reduction in military activity, increased humanitarian access, entry of the Palestinian administration and international force, and an agreed timetable connecting weapons measures to Israeli withdrawals. Without those visible steps, the roadmap could become another diplomatic document that establishes broad principles but fails at implementation.

Trump can reasonably present Hamas’ conditional acceptance as a significant diplomatic achievement. Hamas has moved closer to accepting an end to its independent armed role than it had in previous negotiations. The remaining challenge is persuading Israel and Hamas to accept synchronized obligations when both sides still insist that the other must act first.

Key takeaways from Trump’s Hamas disarmament and Gaza withdrawal plan

• Donald Trump announced that Hamas and other armed groups had agreed to a phased disarmament process connected to an Israeli withdrawal and a new Palestinian administration.
• Hamas official Ghazi Hamad confirmed the conditional agreement on July 31, giving the announcement more substance than an unsupported presidential claim.
• Hamas says Israel must halt attacks, begin withdrawing, expand humanitarian aid and permit international forces into Gaza before weapons measures start.
• Israel maintains that its military will not withdraw from the Yellow Line until Hamas completes genuine and verifiable disarmament.
• The conflicting sequence demanded by the two sides remains the biggest threat to implementation because neither wants to surrender its principal leverage first.
• Hamas police weapons would be transferred to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, while heavy weapons could initially be stored under supervision.
• The roadmap calls for dismantling tunnels, military-production facilities, ammunition depots and other infrastructure used by armed organizations.
• An International Stabilization Force would monitor compliance, separate Israeli and Palestinian-controlled areas, train police and support humanitarian deliveries.
• Netanyahu has not formally endorsed the latest framework, while right-wing Israeli ministers have publicly opposed ending operations before Hamas is destroyed.
• The agreement represents a meaningful diplomatic opening, but continuing strikes and unresolved sequencing mean it is not yet a completed or durable peace settlement.