Hamas says it has agreed to disarm after Trump announces Board of Peace plan
Donald Trump says the Board of Peace has secured agreement for Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza to completely disarm, a move he described as a major step in a US-brokered ceasefire plan. A senior Hamas official told the BBC that the group had agreed and would issue a statement, although Israel had not formally commented and reports suggested it remained dissatisfied with the proposed terms.
Under the plan’s second phase, Israeli forces would withdraw as disarmament is completed, while an international stabilisation force and a new Palestinian police force would assume security responsibilities. The phase also envisages Gaza’s reconstruction, with Egypt, Qatar and Turkey involved as mediators; the war began after Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attack on Israel, which killed 1,200 people and saw 251 taken hostage, followed by Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.
- Hamas reportedly agrees to complete disarmament under a US-backed plan.
- Israeli withdrawal would be linked to completion of disarmament.
- Israel reportedly remains unhappy with the proposed terms.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that verified disarmament by Hamas and other armed groups could offer Gaza and Israel the clearest route out of a devastating cycle of war. They say linking Israeli withdrawal to international security support, Palestinian policing and reconstruction could replace armed rule with institutions better able to protect civilians, while mediation by regional states may make the arrangement more durable. The underlying value is that security for Israelis and Palestinians is mutually dependent and requires a credible political transition.
The case against
Sceptics argue that an announced agreement is not the same as effective, lasting disarmament, particularly without clear verification, enforcement and Israeli consent to the final terms. They worry that requiring disarmament before or alongside withdrawal could leave Gazans vulnerable, while an externally backed security structure may lack local legitimacy or become indefinite. The underlying value is that any settlement must provide real safeguards, accountable Palestinian governance and credible guarantees for all civilians rather than relying on ambiguous promises.