Hamas said it will only disarm after Israel fulfills previous cease-fire commitments, despite President Donald Trump's announcement of a U.S.-brokered agreement [1].
This dispute highlights a significant gap between the White House's portrayal of a diplomatic breakthrough and the reality on the ground in Gaza. If the two parties cannot agree on the sequence of disarmament and commitment fulfillment, the stability of any proposed peace deal remains fragile.
President Trump announced on July 31, 2026, that a historic agreement had been reached to ensure the complete disarmament of Hamas [1]. The announcement suggested a major shift in the conflict, positioning the U.S. as the primary architect of a lasting resolution in the region.
However, Hamas said that any move toward disarmament is dependent on Israel honoring the commitments it made in earlier cease-fire agreements [2]. The group said that the claims of a finalized deal do not align with the current status of negotiations regarding those prior obligations [3].
Israel has not yet provided a detailed public response to the specific conditions set by Hamas following the U.S. announcement. The tension centers on whether disarmament happens as a prerequisite for peace or as a result of verified compliance with existing treaties [1].
Diplomatic sources said that the sequence of events, who acts first and what guarantees are provided, remains the primary obstacle. While the U.S. administration presents the deal as a completed achievement, the parties involved in the Gaza Strip continue to clash over the terms of implementation [2].
This disagreement follows a period of intense U.S. mediation aimed at ending the hostilities. The discrepancy between the presidential claim and the Hamas response underscores the difficulty of verifying disarmament in a conflict zone where trust between combatants is nonexistent [3].
“Hamas said it will only disarm after Israel fulfills previous cease-fire commitments”
The contradiction between the U.S. administration's announcement and Hamas's response suggests that the 'deal' may be a framework rather than a signed agreement. By tying disarmament to previous commitments, Hamas is attempting to secure leverage and verifiable concessions from Israel before relinquishing military power, a move that could stall the timeline presented by the White House.
