On July 30, 2026, US President Trump announced on Truth Social that the Board of Peace had reached a historic agreement — Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza would be fully disarmed. As a condition, Israel would withdraw from Gaza once Hamas had handed over all its weapons.
After the news broke, an official involved in the negotiations added one sentence: from discussion to a formal announcement, there is still a long way to go.
That sentence may reveal the nature of this affair better than the agreement itself.
The "weapons-for-amnesty" plan demands that Hamas hand over not only its weapons but also its governing authority, its military maps, and its escape routes. What it gets in return is a permit to remain in Gaza and a promise of "not being hunted down." Whether this bargain is symmetric — each party has its own arithmetic.
The Skeleton of the Deal: A Six-to-Eight-Month Disarmament Roadmap
The structure of the plan put forward by the US-initiated "Board of Peace" is as follows:
Hamas must hand over all its weapons within six to eight months — including firearms, rockets, and missiles. On top of that, it must also turn over detailed maps of its tunnels, along with the locations of weapons factories and warehouses. The surrendered weapons will be jointly held in custody by the new Palestinian technocratic government and the international stabilization force.
In exchange, Hamas members will receive "amnesty" and may continue to live in the Gaza Strip — no exile, no imprisonment. After the agreement is signed, the Israel Defense Forces will withdraw to the "yellow line" (the disengagement line drawn by the phase-one ceasefire agreement) and halt "targeted killings" of Hamas leaders.
But the Israeli military's withdrawal is conditional: only after Hamas has handed over all its weapons will the IDF pull back any further. Until then, Israel retains the authority to act against "imminent threats."
Another component of the agreement is that the Palestinian technocratic government will gradually take over parts of the Gaza Strip and verify whether any weapons remain in those areas. This means governing authority in Gaza will pass from Hamas to a new administrative body. Whether this step goes well will directly determine whether the agreement can move from paper into reality.
The "Board of Peace" — A Concept Worth Flagging
Unlike the negotiating structure of the US–Iran 14-point memorandum, standing behind this Gaza agreement is the US-initiated "Board of Peace." In his announcement, Trump specifically thanked Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey for their mediation. This indicates that the Board is not a purely American institution but a multilateral coordination platform that includes the region's stakeholders.
The design intent of this mechanism is clear: to bundle the sensitive operations of disarmament under a "Board framework," so that what Hamas faces is not "Israel's terms" but "the consensus of the international community." This structure gives Hamas a face-saving exit — it is not surrendering, it is responding to an international peace initiative.
But at the same time, this also means that Hamas loses the room to stall that bilateral negotiations would have offered. Under a multilateral framework, any delay gets branded as "rejecting peace."
Why This Deserves Attention — Not Just Because It's News
The Gaza conflict has dragged on for nearly two years, during which all parties have tried ceasefires, prisoner exchanges, humanitarian access, and various other approaches — but full disarmament has always remained an untouched red line. Hamas's very foundation of survival is armed resistance; demanding that it hand over its weapons is tantamount to demanding that an armed group surrender its reason for existence.
That is why there is one clause in the agreement worth turning over repeatedly: Hamas members may remain in Gaza and be granted amnesty.
In effect, this opens a way out for Hamas — no pursuit of war responsibility, no demand that the leadership go into exile. For Hamas, this is an extremely important psychological condition: under this plan they do not have to "disappear," they only have to "transform." From an armed group into a political entity — this key is the crux of unlocking the deal.
"Hamas's disarmament could be realized, but from discussion to a formal announcement, there is still a long way to go."
This sentence carries two layers of meaning: first, there are divisions within Hamas over whether to accept this agreement; second, even if Hamas's leadership accepts it, whether the rank-and-file fighters are willing to hand over their weapons remains an uncontrollable variable. How many weapons lie in the underground tunnels and where they are — no one knows better than Hamas itself. "Handing over all weapons" may well be a task that cannot be completed even in ten years.
Loopholes and Open Questions
Several unanswered questions left in the agreement deserve to be singled out:
What to Hand Over, How Much, and Who Counts It?
The agreement demands that Hamas hand over "all weapons" and its tunnel maps, but the verification standards and timetable are not transparent. The sequence in which Hamas hands over weapons — old rifles first, missiles later? Surface weapons first, underground caches later? — leaves room for maneuver at every step.
What Can the International Stabilization Force Do?
The agreement says the international stabilization force will work with the new Palestinian police force to maintain security. But nothing is said about the force's size, composition, chain of command, or rules of engagement. If this turns out to be merely an "observer force," it will be useless the moment former Hamas fighters refuse to disarm.
The Feasibility of the Technocratic Government?
Can the Palestinian technocratic government effectively govern Gaza without the endorsement of both Fatah and Hamas? Gaza's economy has been completely destroyed by the war. What this government will face is not a public-order problem but the survival of millions of people.
Israel's Reserved Right of "Imminent Threat"
The agreement permits the Israeli military to act in the face of an "imminent threat" — an extremely broad exception clause. The experience of the past two years shows that Israel's definition of "threat" far exceeds the literal meaning of the word. This clause could be used to continue carrying out targeted killings, and then cited by Hamas as evidence that "the Israeli side violated the agreement."
The Larger Context of the Deal
Negotiations on Gaza's disarmament have advanced almost in parallel with the US–Iran ceasefire 14-point memorandum. The two share the same core logic: the Trump administration is trying to use a "comprehensive agreement" approach to resolve multiple Middle East fronts in one stroke. From Iran to Hamas, from Gaza to Hormuz, the White House's goal is to deliver an impressive "peace report card" before the 2026 midterm elections.
But the fragility of this plan is equally obvious: it assumes that all participants can be persuaded by economic interests and international pressure. For Hamas, whose survival is built upon armed resistance against Israel, that assumption may be overly optimistic. Historically, there are very few precedents for an armed group voluntarily disarming — the IRA in Northern Ireland is one, but the IRA's disarmament cycle lasted more than a decade and was underwritten by the sustained political commitment of the British Labour government.
What the Gaza agreement requires is not a single signing but a complete mechanism spanning security governance and economic reconstruction that lasts for years. What we can see for now is only the outline of a framework.