The evolving peace framework for Gaza, conceptualized by President, could indeed alter the region’s dynamics, yet analysts caution that unless Hamas is completely divested of its arms and authority, this will amount to little more than a temporary cessation for the militant organization before it reignites hostilities.
Dr. Michael Milshtein, who heads the Moshe Dayan Forum at Tel Aviv University and is among Israel’s foremost authorities on Hamas, asserts that any proposal assuming the group’s dissolution fundamentally misinterprets its character.
“Disregard terms like peace and coexistence — that is simply not going to materialize,” he conveyed to Digital. He clarified that Hamas leaders have explicitly stated their unwillingness to accept an international mandate or a trusteeship modeled after Tony Blair’s. “They are prepared to permit a superficial Palestinian administration to manage daily affairs, but Hamas will operate covertly, much like Hezbollah in Lebanon.”
Milshtein noted that Hamas’s rhetoric concerning “freezing” weapons, rather than surrendering them, reveals its strategic intent. “They are agreeable to halting their expansion of power but not to disarming. They will hand over what remains of their rocket infrastructure but will retain light weaponry and explosives,” he explained. “Hamas will endure in Gaza under all circumstances — as both a military and social force. The conflict may end, but Hamas will remain.”
An Arab source with insight into the negotiations informed Digital that they believe Hamas would consent to disarm — but only if it receives assurances that Prime Minister Netanyahu will not resume the war or pursue its leadership after they surrender their weapons, acknowledging that the second phase will be challenging to negotiate.
Ghaith al-Omari of the Washington Institute suggests that the current wave of optimism hinges on exceptional regional collaboration. “Trump possesses remarkable intuition when it comes to identifying openings and opportunities,” he remarked. “He recognized the opportune moment and acted decisively.”
Al-Omari indicated that a convergence of various pressures—the attack on Qatari soil, escalating, and concerns about the conflict spreading—prompted Arab nations to intervene. “They wield immense influence,” he commented, “and on this occasion, they utilized it.”
He emphasized that Turkey is a crucial participant. “Bringing in the Turks was essential,” al-Omari elaborated. “Ankara had its own objectives with Washington and swiftly moved to be part of the equation.” He explained that Turkey’s leverage over Hamas is both political and personal: it hosts Hamas leaders, controls financial channels, and offers an ideological blueprint through its governing AKP party. “They can advise Hamas, ‘Look at our example — we began as an illegal and unarmed entity, but we learned to operate within the political system. If you disarm, you too can transform into a political organization.’”
’
He suggested that this precedent could motivate Hamas to “engage in a long-term strategy — withdraw for now, maintain political relevance, and await the Palestinian Authority’s weakening.” However, he warned that this approach does not amount to the dismantling of Hamas; it merely redirects its ambitions toward political activity rather than overt combat.
Al-Omari is uneasy about indications that Arab solidarity on disarmament is already eroding. “I am troubled when I hear the Egyptian foreign minister state that disarming Palestinian weapons is an internal matter,” he observed. “And Emirati officials have indicated they would deploy troops only to the Rafah border. That kind of backsliding is perilous.”
He affirmed that the decisive assessment will occur after the initial phase. “If Hamas does not disarm, we will not need to wait for years,” he stated. “Hostilities could reignite within a matter of weeks.”
Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, declared that a truce does not constitute peace. “This is merely a temporary halt,” he communicated to Digital. “True peace will only be achieved when Hamas relinquishes its weapons, surrenders all governmental functions in Gaza, and the Trump Peace Plan is fully actualized. This will demand unwavering attention from the president and his team to overcome Hamas’s tactics and terminate its dominance over the Gazan populace.”
Dubowitz dismissed any hopes of voluntary compliance. “They will never yield willingly,” he asserted. “They must be expelled from Gaza and relentlessly pursued within the Strip by and whatever international security force is prepared to take action.”
Tamir Heiman, a former Israeli intelligence chief, outlined three potential scenarios once the hostages are released and fighting subsides. In the most favorable outcome, Hamas cooperates with the establishment of an alternative technocratic administration supported by international law enforcement agencies. Should it refuse, could still transfer limited security authority to an international force “in distinct sectors, progressively,” he indicated.
The third scenario — and, in his estimation, the most probable — is that no foreign entity intervenes. “The IDF would remain in areas along what we designate as the yellow line, functioning as a security buffer zone similar to southern Lebanon,” Heiman elucidated. Under this arrangement, Israel would maintain operational freedom while Hamas would retain light weapons but be deprived of rockets and missile manufacturing facilities. “This is not peace,” he added, “but it is managed security.”
Collectively, the analysts present a cautious outlook. They contend that the Trump team has successfully aligned regional interests and fostered rare collaboration among Arab capitals, but sustaining that unity through disarmament and reconstruction will be the ultimate benchmark of success.
If Hamas continues to exist as a hybrid militia-government, experts warn, the international community may soon discover that the “peace” is merely an intermission between rounds — a pause erroneously perceived as a conclusion.