Hamas said that the cessation of Israeli military attacks and a full withdrawal from Gaza are prerequisites for its disarmament [1, 2].

This development creates a critical deadlock in the peace process. While the U.S. administration claims a breakthrough in disarmament, the group governing Gaza is now tying that commitment to the immediate end of Israeli military operations.

U.S. President Donald Trump announced an agreement regarding the disarmament of Hamas on July 30 [1]. The announcement suggested a path toward ending the militant group's armed presence in the region.

However, Hamas issued an official statement on July 31 [1, 2] clarifying its position on the deal. The organization said it will not implement the full disarmament outlined in the agreement unless the Israeli military stops its current offensive and exits the Gaza Strip [2].

This response shifts the burden of the next move back to the Israeli government and the U.S. administration. The group's demand for a complete withdrawal serves as a safeguard against potential military resurgence during the disarmament process.

Israeli officials have not yet provided a formal response to these specific conditions. The tension remains high as the military continues its operations in the Gaza Strip, where the disarmament is intended to take place [2].

The sequence of events — a presidential announcement followed by a conditional response from the target party — highlights the fragility of the current diplomatic efforts. The gap between the U.S. announcement and the Hamas demand indicates a lack of consensus on the order of operations for the peace deal.

“Hamas is now tying that commitment to the immediate end of Israeli military operations.”

The clash between the U.S. announcement and the Hamas response reveals a fundamental disagreement over 'sequencing.' President Trump's announcement implied a deal was reached, but Hamas is treating the disarmament not as a starting point, but as a final step that occurs only after Israeli forces leave Gaza. This suggests that the disarmament agreement may have been announced before the specific order of execution was mutually agreed upon.