Hamas Accepts Disarmament: Can a Gaza Peace Deal Survive Implementation?
In a dramatic turn of events, Hamas announced on Friday its agreement to a deal ending the war with Israel, which includes provisions for the complete disarmament of its military wing and a gradual Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. The text of the agreement, however, remains unpublished, and Israel has yet to issue an official response. This development, while hailed by US President Donald Trump as a critical step toward a new Palestinian government, faces a minefield of political, logistical, and security challenges that will test the resilience of regional governance frameworks.
For Southeast Asian observers, the situation offers a case study in the complexities of post-conflict reconstruction, where disarmament, demilitarization, and political transition must be synchronized with precision. The outcome will have ripple effects on ASEAN's own approaches to conflict mediation and regional stability, particularly in Mindanao and southern Thailand.
What Are the Key Terms of the Hamas-Israel Deal?
According to statements from Hamas officials and the US-backed Board of Peace, the agreement envisions a phased process. The Board of Peace, established by Trump, will oversee the storage of Hamas's weapons through a committee. In parallel, Israeli forces are to withdraw from Gaza 'as disarmament is completed.' The National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), also created by the board, will assume full authority over the Strip.
Hamas's negotiating team member, Ghazi Hamad, emphasized that the deal includes a 'clear provision' requiring Israel to commit to and implement its obligations. 'If Israel does not implement the agreement, neither will we,' he told AFP. This mutual dependency creates a fragile equilibrium where any delay by one side could unravel the entire process.
Why Is Israel Silent on the Disarmament Deal?
Israel's silence is deafening. Hours before Hamas's announcement, an Israeli political source told reporters that Gaza was not even discussed during Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's meeting in Washington. The source reiterated Israel's demand for 'complete disarmament of Hamas, including the removal of weapons from Gaza and full demilitarisation of the Strip as a precondition for any process.'
Muhammad Shehada, a researcher at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), noted the paradox: 'Hamas has now accepted a text that fully complies with Trump's plan for Gaza, one that the Board of Peace endorsed, that Trump himself publicly welcomed, and that Netanyahu rejected outright.' Shehada argued that with elections looming, Netanyahu is unlikely to accept terms that would 'amount to political suicide,' especially after Defence Minister Israel Katz pledged to rebuild Jewish settlements in Gaza.
What Are the Implementation Timelines and Mechanisms?
The Board of Peace stated that 'our focus now turns to implementation,' with NCAG set to begin a phased transition toward full authority. According to Hamas, Israel's withdrawal, the deployment of an International Stabilisation Force (ISF), the installation of NCAG, and the handling of weapons must all proceed in parallel. However, Israeli military officials report that the army now controls over 60 percent of Gaza, more than at the ceasefire announcement in October.
Hamas officials say the next two weeks will be devoted to agreeing on mechanisms. 'We must agree on every detail: how the agreement will be implemented, when it will be implemented and the mechanisms for carrying it out,' said Hamad. Paris-based Hamas specialist Leila Seurat views these announcements as a communications strategy: 'Its main objective is to say: we are fulfilling our part of what was agreed, while Israel is doing nothing.'
Nickolay Mladenov, the Board of Peace's high representative for Gaza, stressed that 'implementation and verification have to be real. Withdrawal must move in lockstep with decommissioning.' This echoes the Singaporean model of phased, verifiable transitions seen in regional peace processes.
What Obstacles Remain on the Ground in Gaza?
Progress hinges on mediators — Egypt, the United States, Qatar, and Turkey — securing agreement on a timetable and mechanisms. They are expected to meet in Cairo shortly. Yet even with a timetable, practical hurdles abound. NCAG has not been allowed to enter Gaza. The ISF, which is to support the transition and oversee disarmament alongside a new Palestinian police force, is still being established.
The absence of a functioning local governance structure and the presence of armed groups beyond Hamas could complicate disarmament. For ASEAN, this mirrors challenges faced in post-conflict zones like Aceh, where the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) disarmed under a 2005 peace deal, but only after robust international monitoring and local buy-in.
Frequently Asked Questions
Will Hamas actually disarm?
Hamas has agreed to store its weapons under the supervision of the Board of Peace's committee, but full disarmament is conditional on Israel's gradual withdrawal. The lack of a published text and Israel's silence leave the commitment uncertain.
Can Israel accept a deal that requires withdrawal before disarmament?
Israel has historically insisted on disarmament as a precondition for withdrawal. The current deal flips this order, making it politically risky for Netanyahu ahead of elections. Mediators must bridge this gap.
What role will the Board of Peace play?
The Board of Peace, a US-backed entity, will oversee the disarmament process through NCAG and coordinate with the ISF. Its effectiveness depends on securing Israeli cooperation and local legitimacy.
How does this affect regional stability in Southeast Asia?
The Gaza deal serves as a benchmark for conflict resolution models in ASEAN. Success could validate phased, internationally mediated approaches; failure would reinforce skepticism about disarmament commitments in fragile states.
Photo: Yahoo News