The world can rightfully celebrate the Gaza ceasefire, the return of the living hostages, and the delivery of desperately needed humanitarian aid. Although the agreement reflects the acceptance of hard realities by both sides, it is hard to imagine reaching this step without the personal intervention of President Trump. The challenge now will be to maintain the momentum through the high hurdles ahead.
Fundamental differences remain. Although Hamas’s negotiator claimed “victory” in Cairo, the next phase of the Gaza peace plan calls for Hamas to disarm and demobilize. Hamas fighters are to give up their weapons. Its paramilitary force would be effectively dissolved. Its military infrastructure and weapons manufacturing facilities will be destroyed.
Hamas does not see itself as a defeated force. It will not be easy to persuade its commanders and fighters to agree to provisions they view not simply as surrender, but as apostasy. Abandoning its struggle would violate Hamas’s covenant—its own understanding of its duty to God.
According to its 1988 Covenant, Hamas “strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine,” which it considers an Islamic endowment “consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day.” Palestine, the covenant says, has been usurped by the Jews, making it “compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.” “Resisting and quelling the enemy” is “the individual duty of every Muslim.” “So-called peaceful solutions…are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.”
Under pressure from Arab governments, Hamas issued a supplement to its covenant in 2017. This dropped the references to killing Jews and redefined the enemy as the “Zionist project.” The supplement also expressed Hamas’s willingness to accept an interim Palestinian state—but only as a step toward the liberation of all Palestine “from the river to the sea.” The supplement did not alter Hamas’s commitment to its armed struggle, and the language of the orders given by Hamas commanders to their forces prior to the October 7, 2023 attacks reveal the organization’s fundamental mindset.
It was not clear how Hamas would adapt to the new situation. Would it choose to go along with the peace plan, temporarily suspending its armed struggle in order to eventually re-emerge as a political and military force in a reconstructed Gaza? Or would it exploit the vacuum left by the pullback of Israeli forces to settle scores and re-assert its authority?
Early indications of Hamas’s strategy provide a mixed picture—partial compliance, but continued determination to remain in control.
Return of the Hostages
The interim agreement called for Hamas to return all hostages, alive and deceased. Israel was understandably suspicious that Hamas would try to retain some hostages to prolong the process as it had before. Negotiating the release of a single Israeli soldier taken by Hamas in 2006 took five years.
Holding remains also provides leverage. In a previous case, Hamas held on to the remains of two Israeli soldiers for over a decade. The remains of one were recovered by Israeli forces in January 2025. The other has not been returned.
Hamas released all of the living hostages, but in the following days, it returned the remains of only 15 of the deceased hostages, leaving 13 unreturned. Hamas claimed that it could find no more. The level of destruction in Gaza certainly has made recovering remains difficult. It is also possible that the remains of some of the deceased hostages unaccounted for may be held by other factions. Tragically, as in all wars, some may never be recovered.
Is Hamas again dragging its feet, holding on to the remains as a means of strengthening its hand in forthcoming negotiations? Any attempt by Hamas to link progress on returning the remains to other issues would be met with fury.
The Hostages and Missing Families Forum and Israeli government called Hamas’ failure a brazen violation of the agreement. Under intense domestic pressure to resolve the situation and seeing minimal effort by Hamas to locate the bodies, the Israeli government announced that it would limit aid to Gaza until the remaining bodies are returned. This could remain a contentious issue for months—years.
One need only recall the intense emotion, suspicions of a cover-up, and lasting anger in the United States regarding the POW/MIA issue which persisted for decades after the Vietnam War. POW/MIA flags are still prominently flown at police and fire stations, gas stations and other private locations. Legislation passed in 2020 mandated flying the POW/MIA flag at specific federal sites.
Who Will Rule Gaza?
As soon as Hamas fighters could emerge from their tunnels, they attacked rival factions and carried out public executions of those it accused of being collaborators. It is not clear whether these actions represent a spasm of score settling or further battles will occur. Hamas said it would halt the executions. But tensions remain. Security conditions can deteriorate rapidly.
The 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty that ended the Irish War of Independence led to civil war in Ireland. The end of M-19’s insurgency in Colombia in 1990 led to an assassination campaign of its former leaders, destroying its envisioned transition to a political party. By displaying violence now, Hamas is making it clear that it is in charge and that a peaceful environment depends on its cooperation.
Will Hamas Agree to “Decommission” Its Weapons?
This will be the highest hurdle to overcome in the phase II negotiations. Prime Minister Netanyahu warned that Israel will resume military operations if Hamas is not disarmed. However, Hamas officials have said that disarmament is totally ruled out and not negotiable. President Trump said that he communicated with Hamas, warning them that “If they don’t disarm, we will disarm them. And it will happen quickly and perhaps violently.” The president said they agreed.
Giving up weapons is always the biggest challenge in negotiations to end guerrilla wars and terrorist campaigns. Militants don’t see negotiations as a transition from war to peace, but rather as a continuation of the armed struggle by other means. Turning over weapons admits to defeat. Regular armies can return to their barracks. For extremists, disarmament means extinction.
Guns have political and psychological importance to entities like Hamas. Governments come to negotiations with a legitimacy advantage. Hamas fighters shot their way to the negotiating table—their status derives from violence. Their guns symbolize enduring commitment to their cause. They provide the group with continuing leverage, while allowing its leaders to maintain internal discipline and keep its fighters ready to resume fighting.
Hamas fighters remain committed to extremist views, inculcated since childhood by the Hamas-run education system, but they also joined for personal reasons—vengeance plays a big role. Reportedly, a significant percentage of Hamas fighters in early 2024 were orphans of previous wars in Gaza. No doubt, many of those who joined Hamas since 2023 lost relatives in the current war or saw their livelihoods destroyed by the fighting.
Bearing arms contributes to camaraderie, a sense of membership in a brotherhood, a collective identity that is lost with disarmament. Giving up a gun means abandoning what has become a way of life in return for an uncertain future. It leaves men feeling defenseless, isolated, emasculated.
