Trump Says Israel ‘Very Happy’ With Hamas Disarmament Deal, but Netanyahu Signals Deep Reservations

Key Facts

Published: July 31, 2026 Location: Jerusalem / Washington D.C. Source: The Times of Israel, Reuters, Hamas 2017 Document of General Principles and Policies

• President Trump says Israel supports a phased Hamas disarmament agreement, but Netanyahu has not endorsed it and Israeli officials deny agreeing to withdraw before Hamas genuinely disarms.
• Hamas officials describe the proposal as weapons “storage,” conditioned on an Israeli ceasefire and withdrawal, rather than immediate and complete surrender.
• Hamas’ own political documents continue to reject Israel’s legitimacy and describe armed resistance as a strategic and religiously framed obligation, fueling deep Israeli skepticism.

The White House is celebrating a potential breakthrough, yet Israeli officials warn that Hamas has agreed only to store certain weapons—and only after Israel withdraws from Gaza.

by Emmitt Barry, Worthy News Washington D.C. Bureau Chief

(Worthy News) – President Donald Trump said Friday that Israel was “very happy” with a newly announced agreement aimed at disarming Hamas, even as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remained publicly silent and senior Israeli officials indicated that Jerusalem had not accepted the proposal in its current form.

Speaking during a Cabinet meeting at Camp David, Trump described the agreement as a major breakthrough in his administration’s effort to end the Israel-Hamas war and establish a new governing authority in the Gaza Strip.

“We do have an understanding with Israel,” Trump said when asked whether Jerusalem had agreed to honor the deal. “Israel is very happy about it. Israel helped us, and they’ve been very good.”

Trump acknowledged that implementation could face difficulties but said the agreement represented progress few believed possible. He said Hamas would surrender its weapons through a process overseen by his U.S.-backed Board of Peace.

However, Netanyahu has not publicly endorsed the agreement, and statements attributed to a senior Israeli official directly contradicted Trump’s characterization of Israel’s position. The official said Israel would not withdraw its forces from their present defensive positions until Hamas had undergone “genuine disarmament.”

Weapons Stored, Not Necessarily Destroyed

The differences go beyond diplomatic language.

The 15-point roadmap reportedly calls for Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations to decommission and store heavy weapons, military production facilities, weapons depots and tunnels under the supervision of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, a Palestinian technocratic body.

The weapons would not be transferred to Israel or another non-Palestinian party. Hamas official Ghazi Hamad also avoided using the word “disarmament,” describing the proposal instead as a “comprehensive framework.”

Hamad said Hamas would not begin placing weapons into storage until Israel stopped its military operations, increased humanitarian access and withdrew its forces to positions established under the previous Sharm el-Sheikh agreement.

“We will not take any action regarding disarmament prior to Israel’s withdrawal from the Strip,” Hamad said Thursday.

An Israeli official responded that there would be no Israel Defense Forces withdrawal from the current Yellow Line until Hamas had surrendered its weapons in a verifiable manner. The disagreement leaves both sides demanding that the other act first—the same obstacle that has repeatedly stalled earlier negotiations.

Netanyahu’s Silence Reflects Israeli Skepticism

Trump announced Thursday that his Board of Peace had reached a “historic” agreement for the complete, phased disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza. Under the proposed process, Israeli forces would gradually withdraw while an International Stabilization Force and newly organized Palestinian police secured the territory.

Yet a U.S. official acknowledged that Israel remained “very skeptical” that Hamas would actually relinquish its weapons. Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir called the draft unacceptable and urged Israel to continue targeting Hamas leaders.

The concern in Jerusalem is that Hamas could place selected heavy weapons in storage while preserving command networks, operatives, concealed arms and the ideological infrastructure needed to rebuild its military capabilities.

Israel has seen similar patterns before. Hamas has accepted temporary ceasefires and tactical pauses while consistently refusing to recognize Israel’s legitimacy or abandon what it calls “armed resistance.”

Hamas’ Ideology Makes Disarmament More Than a Military Question

The central question is not merely whether Hamas will surrender rifles, rockets and tunnel systems. It is whether the organization is prepared to abandon the Islamist ideology that made those weapons instruments of what Hamas considers a religious obligation.

Hamas’ founding covenant identifies the organization as an Islamic movement rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood and declares Islam to be the source of its political program, worldview and conduct. It presents the conflict over the land as a religious struggle and describes jihad as a duty connected to the recovery of territory claimed as Islamic land.

Hamas attempted to soften some of its international language in its 2017 political document, distinguishing between Jews and what it called the “Zionist project.” Yet the document still refuses to recognize Israel’s legitimacy, demands the “full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” and identifies armed resistance as a strategic choice.

The document explicitly rejects attempts to undermine what Hamas calls “the resistance and its arms.” It further declares that “resistance and jihad” will remain a duty and an honor connected to the liberation of the territory.

That ideological foundation helps explain Israel’s skepticism. For Hamas, weapons are not simply tools maintained for national defense. They are bound to a theological and revolutionary worldview in which Israel’s continued existence is treated as illegitimate.

A genuine disarmament agreement would therefore require far more than placing missiles in warehouses. It would require Hamas to renounce the ideological purpose for which it built its military organization—something the group has not publicly done.

A Breakthrough—or Another Tactical Pause?

Trump said the agreement would eventually allow Gaza to be governed by a new Palestinian administration working with the Board of Peace, while providing Israel with the security necessary to prevent the territory from again becoming a base for terrorism.

“This is a monumental step toward lasting peace and security,” the president said when announcing the proposal.

The framework may provide an opportunity to remove Hamas from power and end years of warfare. But its success will depend on enforceable verification, control of the weapons-storage process, dismantlement of tunnels and production facilities, and consequences if Hamas conceals or rebuilds its arsenal.

Until those safeguards are established—and until Netanyahu formally accepts the arrangement—Trump’s declaration of a historic breakthrough remains an ambitious promise rather than a completed peace.

For Israel, the test will not be whether Hamas signs another document. It will be whether the terrorist organization permanently loses the military power to carry out another October 7—and whether the ideology behind that massacre is finally confronted rather than merely placed in temporary storage.

Latest Worthy News