The fine print of the Trump plan: The clause that will allow Hamas to keep its weapons | Dr. Eitan Lasri

The progress in the negotiations for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and the implementation of the peace plan of US President Donald Trump — the "20-point plan" — marks a strategic turning point in the campaign that began following the October 7 attack. For the first time since the outbreak of the war, a broad political framework is presented, seeking to combine the end of the fighting with a reshaping of the security and civilian reality in the Gaza Strip.

The plan, promoted under the auspices of the Peace Council, includes five key pillars: dismantling Hamas and other terrorist organizations of their weapons, full demilitarization of the Gaza Strip, a gradual withdrawal of the IDF, the establishment of an alternative civilian governing mechanism, and the transfer of security responsibility to an international stabilization force. From the perspective of the American administration, this is a move intended to prevent the rehabilitation of the terror infrastructure and lay the foundations for a new security reality in the Middle East.

At the heart of the understandings lies the principle that Israel has insisted on throughout the campaign — there will be no Israeli withdrawal without full and verified demilitarization of the Gaza Strip. Following Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's meeting with the Peace Council representative, Nikolay Mladenov, it was clarified that the IDF will not withdraw from the yellow line before the completion of the dismantling of Hamas from all the combat means in its possession. The commitment includes not only rockets and heavy weaponry, but also small arms, ammunition depots, production facilities, and the underground tunnel network, all of which are to be destroyed or neutralized under international supervision. If this plan is indeed implemented in full, it may fundamentally change the balance of power in the south and remove the terror threat that has turned Gaza into an offensive base against Israel for years.

However, alongside the political potential, an in-depth analysis of the plan reveals a series of fundamental gaps that could turn the agreement from a historical opportunity into a security risk. The first issue is the order of execution and the timetables. Although the Peace Council emphasizes that the withdrawal will begin only after the demilitarization, there is ambiguity in the documents regarding the actual implementation method.

The fear in Israel is that a gradual and parallel process will allow for an Israeli withdrawal even before the completion of the dismantling of all of Hamas's military capabilities, thereby creating a dangerous gap between the political commitments and the reality on the ground. Another risk focus concerns the scope of the demilitarization and the question of "storage" of weapons. While the plan explicitly refers to rockets, tunnels, and heavy weaponry, it leaves question marks regarding the tens of thousands of small arms in the hands of Hamas operatives.

Moreover, the organization's demand to transfer the weapons to "storage" by a Palestinian committee — instead of destroying them or removing them from the Strip — could allow for the preservation of a military infrastructure that could serve as a base for rearmament in the future. Another aspect is the structure of the future security mechanisms. The plan speaks of establishing a new Palestinian police force and a temporary technocratic government, but a possible integration of elements identified with Hamas into the enforcement mechanisms, alongside the dismantling of other militias, could create a situation where the organization retains actual influence, even if it no longer bears official responsibility for governance.

The issue of supervision is no less significant. The responsibility for verifying the demilitarization is supposed to be in the hands of an international force and a dedicated oversight committee. From Israel's point of view, such a mechanism cannot be a substitute for an independent verification capability. The experience gained in Southern Lebanon and Gaza teaches that a gap between international reports and operational reality could allow for the rehabilitation of terror infrastructures under the radar. These gaps are also reflected in the political dispute in Israel.

Senior ministers, including Bezalel Smotrich and Orit Struck, argue that the published text differs from the plan presented to the cabinet. According to them, it does not guarantee full demilitarization, allows for a gradual withdrawal of the IDF in parallel with the dismantling process, does not condition the rehabilitation of the Strip on demilitarization, and brings the idea of a Palestinian state back to the table. They further warn that changing the designation of the multinational force could limit the IDF's freedom of action instead of assisting in the fight against terror. On the other hand, Hamas's positions also illustrate how long the road to a final agreement still is. The organization demands a full ceasefire and an IDF withdrawal even before handing over the combat means, and even opposes their full destruction. These positions illustrate that the gap between Israel's demands and Hamas's perception remains deep and fundamental.

Migration of Gaza residents — a component in President Trump's regional vision

Another component in President Donald Trump's vision for the future of the Gaza Strip is the creation of a mechanism that will allow for the voluntary migration of some of the Strip's residents to countries that will agree to absorb them within the framework of an international arrangement. According to this concept, alongside the dismantling of Hamas from its weapons, the demilitarization of the Strip, and the establishment of a new civilian government, the migration of residents who wish to do so may alleviate the humanitarian crisis, reduce demographic pressure, and allow for a broader process of economic and infrastructure rehabilitation.

From the perspective of the Trump administration, this is one of the possible components for shaping a new regional reality that will reduce the potential for the rearmament of terrorist organizations and create conditions for long-term stability. However, this issue is currently not an agreed-upon part of the political plan, and it remains controversial in the international arena. Its realization, if at all, depends on the consent of the receiving countries, broad international cooperation, and ensuring the voluntary nature of the migration, in accordance with the rules of international law.

From Israel's point of view, any future arrangement must rely on five fundamental principles that are not subject to negotiation: full, irreversible, and verified demilitarization of all combat means; physical destruction or removal from the Strip of the weapons, ammunition, and tunnel network — and not their "storage"; maintaining Israel's independent verification capability; ensuring full operational freedom of action for the IDF against any attempt at rearmament; and the completion of the return of all hostages as a threshold condition for any stage of the implementation of the arrangement.

In conclusion, the Trump plan creates a significant political opportunity for reshaping the reality in the Gaza Strip after years of confrontations and war. However, its success will not be measured by the number of declarations, but by the ability to actually implement the demilitarization and supervision mechanisms. Without binding timetables, reliable verification mechanisms, and solid security guarantees, the ceasefire could turn into a tactical pause only, which will allow Hamas to rehabilitate and prepare for the next confrontation. Israel's national interest is clear: any agreement must ensure that the Gaza Strip does not return to being a terror base threatening the country's citizens. Only full, supervised, and irreversible demilitarization, alongside maintaining the IDF's freedom of action, will be able to give the political arrangement long-term stability and turn the current opportunity into a new and safer security reality.

Dr. Eitan Lasri — expert in governance and geostrategic public policy, former advisor to prime ministers, senior media commentator.