by Emmitt Barry, Worthy News Washington D.C. Bureau Chief
(Worthy News) – President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace is considering a significant overhaul of its Gaza disarmament framework after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected a plan that would have linked Hamas weapons handovers to phased Israeli troop withdrawals, according to an exclusive report by The Times of Israel.
Under the alternative now being discussed, Hamas would be required to surrender all of its weapons across Gaza before Israel makes a major troop withdrawal, a source directly familiar with the negotiations told The Times of Israel. Only after the Board of Peace verifies the full demilitarization of Hamas-controlled territory would Israeli forces withdraw to the Gaza perimeter.
The proposal would represent a major departure from the framework Hamas approved on July 30.
That plan divided the roughly 47% of Gaza then remaining under Hamas control into five sectors. Hamas weapons would be surrendered and tunnels destroyed sector by sector. Once the Board of Peace verified that a sector had been demilitarized, Israeli forces would redeploy toward the Gaza border.
Netanyahu rejected that sequencing, insisting that Hamas must be completely disarmed before Israel relinquishes territory or makes further withdrawals. The Wall Street Journal separately reported that Netanyahu publicly rejected withdrawing Israeli forces in tandem with Hamas disarmament, placing Jerusalem at odds with the original U.S.-backed framework.
Kushner-Netanyahu Talks Seek Path Forward
The potential restructuring emerged following hours of talks Monday between Netanyahu and Trump adviser Jared Kushner.
A Board of Peace official characterized the meeting as lengthy and productive and said the sides had agreed on a path forward, Reuters reported.
The Board later said there would be no Israeli military redeployment “from Gaza” until Hamas is completely disarmed and the territory demilitarized. However, The Times of Israel reported that the wording did not necessarily resolve the deeper disagreement over whether Israeli forces could reposition inside Gaza while Hamas dismantles its military infrastructure.
The original agreement announced by Trump in late July called for the complete disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups through a phased process. Trump described the agreement at the time as a major step toward lasting security, although Israeli officials immediately expressed skepticism over whether Hamas would actually surrender its arsenal.
The plan also called for destroying tunnels, weapons stockpiles and arms-production facilities while transferring Gaza’s governance to a Palestinian civilian administration operating alongside an international stabilization force.
New Framework Could Put Pressure Back on Hamas
While an all-at-once disarmament framework could address Israel’s central security demand, it could also jeopardize months of negotiations that persuaded Hamas to accept the phased approach.
Any major alteration would require Hamas approval, potentially prolonging negotiations further.
The central question now is whether Washington can produce a formula that satisfies Israel’s demand for verifiable, irreversible demilitarization while persuading Hamas to surrender the military infrastructure it has built throughout Gaza.
For Israel, the issue reaches beyond the location of IDF troops. Jerusalem has repeatedly maintained that the October 7 attack demonstrated the danger of allowing Hamas to retain the weapons, tunnels and command structure necessary to rebuild its terrorist capabilities.
The emerging proposal would therefore shift the burden of proof increasingly toward Hamas: disarm first, verify the demilitarization, and only then trigger a major Israeli withdrawal.
Why Hamas Disarmament Remains the Central Obstacle
At the heart of the negotiations is a deeper question that extends beyond weapons inventories, tunnels, and Israeli troop positions: Can Hamas be persuaded to surrender the very instruments through which it has pursued its Islamist revolutionary ideology for decades?
Hamas is not simply an armed political faction. Its worldview is rooted in an Islamist ideology that presents its struggle against Israel in religious terms and has historically elevated jihad, armed resistance, and what it calls the liberation of Palestine as central objectives.
That makes complete disarmament far more difficult than a conventional ceasefire arrangement.
For Hamas to voluntarily surrender its weapons, dismantle its military infrastructure, and relinquish its ability to wage armed jihad against Israel could be portrayed by its enemies — and potentially understood by many within its own movement — as an admission of military and ideological defeat.
That reality helps explain why Israeli officials remain deeply skeptical of agreements that depend primarily upon Hamas promises.
Even if Hamas accepts language calling for demilitarization, the critical issue will be whether it actually turns over its weapons, destroys its tunnels, dismantles its production facilities, and abandons the military infrastructure that has defined the organization for decades.
The difficulty is compounded by the concept of temporary truces within Islamist movements. Hamas has previously spoken in terms of a hudna, or extended truce, rather than permanent acceptance of Israel. Such arrangements can suspend conflict without resolving the underlying ideological struggle.
For that reason, the current dispute over sequencing is more than a technical disagreement.
Israel’s position — disarmament first, withdrawal afterward — reflects its determination not to exchange strategically important territory for promises that could later be reversed.
The Board of Peace negotiations may yet produce an agreement. But the fundamental test will not be what Hamas signs. It will be what Hamas actually surrenders.
Until its weapons, tunnels, command networks and ability to rebuild its military forces are verifiably dismantled, any declaration that Hamas has been disarmed will remain difficult to accept at face value.
For Israel, the lesson of October 7 is that intentions matter — but capabilities matter even more.
Copyright 1999-2026 Worthy News. This article was originally published on Worthy News and was reproduced with permission.
