On 30 July, Donald Trump announced a “HISTORIC agreement for the COMPLETE DISARMAMENT of Hamas and all other armed groups in Gaza” in a triumphant post on his Truth Social account. This was a “monumental step toward lasting PEACE and SECURITY,” he declared, gushing with praise in the manner of an Oscar-winning starlet for all who had contributed to this “AMAZING DEVELOPMENT THAT EVERYBODY SAID COULD NEVER BE ACHIEVED”.
The only problem is that it is still far from clear whether – and how – this process will actually be achieved. Hamas, the largest militant group in Gaza, acknowledged the deal but insisted that any agreement to hand over its weapons depended on Israel first “ending hostilities” and withdrawing its forces from Gaza. There was no formal comment from Israel’s government at the time of writing, but a senior official briefed reporters that there would be “no Israeli withdrawal” from current positions within the Gaza Strip “before the dismantling of Hamas”. The far-right national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir urged Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to reject the deal, writing on X: “You only talk with Nazis through the crosshairs – and no other way.”
The disarmament of Hamas has been a critical issue in negotiations since October, when Trump announced a US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that was meant to bring an end to the two-year war. The militant group has agreed to a “gradual and sequenced” process that would eventually transfer its weapons to a new technocratic administration known as the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG). But Israel remains sceptical that Hamas intends to disarm, insisting that process must be completed before Israeli troops are withdrawn.
Despite Trump’s characteristically emphatic claims of a breakthrough, there is no evidence that the sequencing roadblock has been resolved. The Board of Peace – an international organisation established and chaired by Trump to oversee the ceasefire, which includes Tony Blair as a member of its executive board – released a statement shortly after Trump’s announcement reiterating that Hamas had agreed to a “detailed roadmap for implementing the next phases of the Gaza ceasefire”. But the parties now have two weeks to agree a timetable for that process, which can be extended if necessary, as seems likely. A separate post by Nickolay Mladenov, the Board’s high representative for Gaza, said only that the withdrawal of Israeli forces would move “in lockstep” with decommissioning.
The timing is awkward for Netanyahu, who visited Trump in Washington this week and faces elections later this year. He is already under pressure from hard-right members of his own government to reject any withdrawal from Gaza until Hamas fully disarms. Equally, he will be wary of angering Trump, whose support he is courting to keep up US military pressure on Iran. Presumably alluding to this dynamic, a US official told reporters overnight that the president would be “very, very disappointed” if Israel did not adhere to the plan.
Trump has a long track record of declaring premature victories, as he has done repeatedly throughout his war with Iran. As he convenes his cabinet at Camp David today to discuss his options in that conflict, perhaps it is not surprising that he seized on the glimmers of progress elsewhere in the region, however tenuous. In reality, both conflicts are far from resolved. The war with Iran appears to be widening, lurching from periods of tentative truce to the resumption of large-scale strikes. In Gaza, despite the formal ceasefire, the near-daily Israeli strikes have not ceased. More than 1,000 people have been killed in the territory since the supposed end to the fighting last year. Several people were injured in another airstrike in Gaza within hours of Trump announcing his “historic” breakthrough.
Presumably speaking for many this morning, the EU’s chief diplomat Kaja Kallas said the agreement would be a “constructive step towards peace” if it was fully implemented. But “a lot needs to fall in place for this to work.”
[Further reading: The new terror]
Content from our partners
Related
Join the debate
Subscribe here to comment