Hamas says implementation of the newly announced U.S.-brokered Gaza peace framework will depend on Israel first fulfilling commitments made under a previous agreement reached in Sharm el Sheikh last year. The statement came after U.S. President Donald Trump announced what he described as a major breakthrough toward ending the Gaza war, including the complete disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups.
The development underscores continuing disagreements over the sequence of obligations, with both Israel and Hamas insisting the other side must act first before the agreement can move forward.
Key Developments
Senior Hamas official Ghazi Hamad said the proposed agreement is part of a broader framework rather than a standalone disarmament deal. According to Hamas, Israel must first implement the initial phase of last year’s Sharm el Sheikh agreement by ending military operations in Gaza, withdrawing its forces to positions held in October, and allowing greater humanitarian aid and commercial goods into the territory.
Hamad stated that only after those commitments are fulfilled would Hamas transfer its weapons to the newly established National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, a technocratic body created to govern the enclave.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
Israel has rejected that sequencing. An Israeli official said the government will not withdraw behind the Yellow Line or complete demilitarization arrangements until Hamas is fully disarmed and Gaza is demilitarized, highlighting a fundamental disagreement over implementation.
Why It Matters
The opposing positions expose the primary obstacle to implementing the latest U.S.-backed peace initiative. While Washington has presented the agreement as a significant diplomatic achievement, both Hamas and Israel continue to demand that the other side make the first move, raising uncertainty over whether the framework can be translated into concrete action.
The dispute also reflects broader challenges facing post war governance in Gaza. Questions over security arrangements, humanitarian access, military withdrawal and the transfer of authority remain deeply contested. Unless mediators can bridge these sequencing differences, the agreement risks stalling before implementation begins, prolonging instability and delaying prospects for a lasting ceasefire.
With information from Reuters.
