Trump says Hamas has agreed to disarm. The negotiations tell a different story

US President Donald Trump declared that Hamas had agreed to lay down its arms, and much of the international media echoed the announcement as though a final agreement had already been reached. The statement suggested that the Palestinian resistance had finally accepted Israeli and American terms.

The negotiations themselves tell a different story.

Neither the 15-point draft currently under discussion nor the public statements issued by Hamas leaders support the claim that the movement has agreed to unilateral disarmament. What exists is a framework for negotiations whose implementation depends on reciprocal commitments carried out in carefully sequenced phases. The principal disagreement is not whether there should be an agreement, but in what order each side must fulfil its obligations.

Israel has yet to formally endorse the proposal and continues to raise reservations while simultaneously maintaining its military campaign in Gaza.

According to the draft published by Middle East Eye, the proposed roadmap includes a permanent ceasefire, the gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces, the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, the establishment of a technocratic Palestinian administration and international mechanisms to oversee implementation. Only within this broader process does the document envisage discussions on future security arrangements, including the question of the weapons held by the Palestinian resistance.

Israel seeks to reverse that sequence. It insists that Hamas must first disarm, dismantle its tunnel network and military infrastructure, and only then would Israel consider a substantial withdrawal from Gaza.

Hamas has consistently defended the opposite approach. Its political leadership argues that any discussion concerning its military capabilities can only take place after the war has ended, Israeli forces have completely withdrawn and credible international guarantees exist to ensure that all parties comply with the agreement.

Khalil al-Hayya, head of Hamas’ Political Bureau, recently reaffirmed that the movement’s overriding priority is to end the Israeli assault, stop the killing of civilians and secure the complete withdrawal of occupation forces. Only after these objectives are achieved, he said, could discussions regarding the future of the resistance’s weapons begin.

Basem Naim has likewise rejected claims that Hamas has accepted unilateral disarmament. He maintains that any future discussion of security arrangements is conditional upon Israel first implementing its own obligations under the proposed agreement.

READ: Hamas says Israel escalating Gaza attacks to derail ceasefire understandings

Events following Trump’s announcement reinforce that assessment. Israeli military operations have continued without interruption, Palestinian civilians continue to be killed and no effective ceasefire has entered into force. Had a final agreement actually been concluded, the immediate suspension of hostilities would have been the most visible indicator. Instead, negotiations remain ongoing.

Hamas’ position must also be understood within its historical and legal context. Since its establishment in 1987, the movement has maintained that armed resistance is inseparable from the existence of military occupation. From this perspective, surrendering its weapons before the occupation ends would amount to relinquishing its principal source of political leverage without any guarantee that Israel would fulfil its own commitments.

This argument is rooted in principles of international law that are frequently overlooked in contemporary political debate. The right of peoples to self-determination is recognised by the UN Charter, the International Covenants on Human Rights and numerous UN General Assembly resolutions affirming the legitimacy of struggles against colonial domination and foreign occupation. At the same time, international humanitarian law requires every party to an armed conflict to protect civilians and respect its fundamental rules.

Demanding the unilateral disarmament of an occupied people while the occupation itself remains intact fundamentally alters the logic of negotiations. Durable peace agreements are rarely built upon unconditional surrender. More often, they emerge from gradual processes in which military withdrawal, international guarantees, reconstruction and reciprocal security commitments advance together.

That is precisely the stage the Gaza negotiations have now reached.

Presenting Hamas as having already accepted disarmament therefore misrepresents both the negotiating framework and the movement’s publicly stated position. Trump’s announcement may serve immediate political objectives, but it does not accurately describe the reality unfolding at the negotiating table.

As long as the occupation continues and the core provisions of any future agreement remain unimplemented, declaring Hamas disarmed is less a description of reality than an attempt to shape the political narrative surrounding it.

OPINION: Settler violence and the new Nakba in the West Bank

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.