Gaza Peace Plan 2025: Why Hamas Denies Disarmament and Why the Proposal Looks More Like an Ultimatum than a Practical Solution

—

by

Himanshu
in

The Gaza Strip has long been at the epicenter of Middle Eastern turmoil. For decades, proposals have been floated for peace, reconstruction, and reconciliation. In 2025, a new 20-point Gaza Peace Plan was tabled by the Trump administration. On paper, it seemed ambitious: ceasefire, interim international governance, reconstruction funds, and a pathway toward stability.

But at its core, one element sparked immediate controversy: the demand that Hamas disarm.

Within hours of media reports suggesting Hamas had agreed, the group issued a blunt denial. Senior Hamas figures described such claims as “false and politically motivated.” Their refusal highlights a deeper truth: the Gaza Peace Plan, in its current form, is not practical. For Hamas, it is less a peace proposal and more an ultimatum — a forced surrender dressed in diplomatic language.

This blog explores the Gaza peace plan in detail, why disarmament is a sticking point, and why the plan is unlikely to succeed under present conditions.

What the Gaza Peace Plan Proposes

While the final draft of the plan is not public, multiple reports and diplomatic leaks outline its major points.

Key Provisions of the 20-Point Plan

No.ProvisionDetails
1Immediate CeasefireHostilities between Israel and Hamas to end under international guarantees.
2Hostage ReleaseAll hostages held by Hamas to be freed unconditionally.
3Disarmament of HamasHamas expected to hand over heavy weaponry, rockets, and arms stockpiles.
4International AdministrationGaza to be placed under temporary international control for 2–3 years.
5Foreign Stabilization ForceDeployment of foreign troops to monitor borders and internal order.
6Reconstruction ProgramBillions in aid promised for rebuilding infrastructure and housing.
7Political TransitionGradual move toward Palestinian Authority or new governance model.

At first glance, these appear comprehensive. But point 3 — disarmament — transforms the proposal from a peace plan into an ultimatum.

Why Hamas Refuses Disarmament

For Hamas, weapons are not just tools of war — they are its primary source of political power and negotiating leverage.

Core Reasons Behind the Refusal

  1. Identity and Legitimacy
    • Hamas presents itself as a resistance movement. Disarmament would undermine its identity.
    • Many of its supporters equate disarmament with capitulation.
  2. Security Vacuum Fear
    • If Hamas disarms, who guarantees protection for Gaza’s 2.3 million residents?
    • Foreign troops cannot guarantee long-term security against Israeli operations or internal rivals.
  3. Distrust of Guarantees
    • Previous peace frameworks (Oslo, Cairo talks, UN-brokered ceasefires) often collapsed.
    • Hamas doubts U.S. and Israeli promises.
  4. Negotiating Leverage
    • Rockets, drones, and underground tunnel networks are bargaining chips.
    • Giving them up upfront strips Hamas of leverage before reconstruction aid arrives.

Figures: What “Disarmament” Really Means

Estimates of Hamas’s arsenal vary, but here’s what experts believe:

CategoryApproximate NumbersNotes
Short & Medium-Range Rockets15,000–20,000Many locally manufactured (Qassam, M-75, etc.)
Long-Range Missiles500–1,000Capable of reaching Tel Aviv, Jerusalem
Mortars & DronesSeveral thousandDrones increasingly used for surveillance & attacks
Tunnel Infrastructure500 km+Used for smuggling and surprise raids
Fighters (armed wing)20,000–25,000Trained militants under Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades

Asking Hamas to surrender this military apparatus is essentially asking it to dissolve its ability to resist — or to govern.

Why the Peace Plan is Not Practical

1. It Ignores Ground Realities

  • Gaza is deeply militarized. Disarmament would require massive verification, inspections, and monitoring.
  • Enforcement would be nearly impossible without heavy foreign troop presence — which locals would resist.

2. It Resembles an Ultimatum

  • The message to Hamas: “Give up your arms, hand over power, or face obliteration.”
  • This is not negotiation — it’s coerced surrender.

3. It Discounts Popular Opinion in Gaza

  • Many Palestinians see armed resistance as legitimate defense.
  • Any leadership agreeing to disarm risks losing credibility or being overthrown internally.

4. Trust Deficit with Mediators

  • U.S. role is viewed with suspicion, given its consistent alignment with Israeli security concerns.
  • Hamas does not believe the U.S. can act as a neutral guarantor.

5. Reconstruction as a Carrot, Not a Right

  • Billions in promised aid are contingent upon Hamas giving up arms.
  • This conditionality reduces humanitarian rebuilding to a bargaining chip.

Comparison with Other Conflicts

History shows disarmament in such conflicts rarely succeeds unless part of a genuine power-sharing deal.

CaseOutcomeLesson
IRA (Northern Ireland)Agreed to decommission arms under Good Friday AgreementOnly worked with inclusive politics & shared governance
FARC (Colombia)Disarmed under peace deal, but some splinters refusedRisk of fragmentation if all factions don’t buy in
Taliban (Afghanistan)Never fully disarmed; negotiated power-sharing insteadShows strong militant groups rarely give up arms first

Hamas is closer to the Taliban model than to the IRA — it will not disarm unless power is guaranteed in exchange.

The Ultimatum Factor

Many analysts note that Trump’s rhetoric — threatening “complete obliteration” of Hamas if it refused — stripped away any pretense of neutrality.

  • Language of Force: Rather than framing disarmament as part of mutual compromise, the plan casts it as a condition for survival.
  • Psychological Impact: To Hamas and its supporters, this looks less like peace and more like submission.
  • Diplomatic Fallout: Such framing reduces chances of Hamas engaging meaningfully with mediators.

In essence, the plan reads as: “Lay down your weapons, accept foreign troops, and relinquish power — or face destruction.”

Regional Stakeholders and Reactions

Israel

  • Supports demilitarization but skeptical if Hamas will comply.
  • Wants international oversight but fears partial compliance will allow hidden weapons.

Egypt

  • Fears instability spilling over its border.
  • Prefers a solution that weakens Hamas but avoids chaos.

Qatar & Turkey

  • More sympathetic to Hamas.
  • Likely to oppose any plan that looks like enforced surrender.

Iran

  • Key backer of Hamas.
  • Will encourage resistance against disarmament, supplying resources covertly.

Humanitarian Stakes

  • Population of Gaza: ~2.3 million (70% refugees, half under age 18).
  • Unemployment: Over 45% (youth unemployment ~65%).
  • Infrastructure damage: Billions in destruction from repeated conflicts.
  • Reconstruction needs: At least $15–20 billion for housing, power, and hospitals.

Without stability, reconstruction will stall, and humanitarian suffering will deepen. Yet tying aid to disarmament delays relief.

Possible Alternatives to Full Disarmament

Since full disarmament is unrealistic, alternative models could include:

  1. Phased Arms Control
    • Gradual handover of heavy weapons, monitored by international inspectors.
    • Local policing weapons retained by Hamas or other Palestinian authorities.
  2. Joint Security Framework
    • Hamas shares security responsibilities with international forces.
    • Prevents power vacuum while building trust.
  3. Conditional Ceasefires with Verification
    • Instead of total disarmament, temporary weapons freezes enforced with technology and surveillance.
  4. Political Integration
    • Bringing Hamas into Palestinian Authority structures with power-sharing guarantees.

Conclusion

The Gaza Peace Plan of 2025, though ambitious, is fundamentally impractical in its current form. By demanding Hamas disarm upfront, it shifts from being a negotiation platform to being an ultimatum for surrender.

Peace in Gaza cannot be imposed through threats of obliteration or by stripping one party of all bargaining power. Sustainable solutions require phased compromises, inclusive governance, and credible guarantees from neutral mediators.

Until then, the cycle of denial, resistance, and renewed conflict is likely to continue. The Gaza peace plan may read like diplomacy, but in reality, it carries the unmistakable tone of an ultimatum.

Disclaimer

This article is based on publicly available information, conflict analysis, and historical comparisons. It is intended for educational and informational purposes only. It does not endorse or oppose any political stance, government, or organization.