World reacts with cautious optimism to Hamas disarmament agreement | Israel-Palestine conflict News
Hamas Announces Agreement to End Conflict in Gaza
Hamas, the Palestinian group, has declared its agreement to a deal aimed at bringing an end to the ongoing conflict in Gaza, which has persisted for nearly three years and resulted in extensive loss of life and destruction. The agreement, confirmed by U.S. and international mediators on Thursday and Friday, involves a phased disarmament of Hamas and the withdrawal of Israeli forces.
President Donald Trump announced the deal late Thursday, following a meeting of the U.S.-led Board of Peace and International Stabilization Force for Gaza. Mediators from Egypt, Qatar, Turkiye, and the U.S. reported that they had finalized a roadmap to advance the ceasefire.
While a truce was established last October, it failed to completely halt hostilities, although violence has decreased. Trump described the deal as “a historic agreement for the complete disarmament of Hamas and all other armed groups in Gaza,” calling it “a monumental step toward lasting peace and security.”
However, concerns have emerged regarding the agreement’s implementation, particularly given the prior failure of the ceasefire and the prevailing mistrust between Palestinian and Israeli factions.
Responses from Key Players
In the United States, Trump characterized the agreement as pivotal to his 20-point plan introduced last year. He noted that it is a critical step toward establishing a new Palestinian government that would collaborate with the Board of Peace. He assured that Israel would have the necessary security, emphasizing that Gaza would no longer serve as a base for terrorist activities.
The Israeli government had not issued an official response by Friday evening. However, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir dismissed the plan as “unacceptable,” arguing that stopping the targeted killings of Hamas members would allow the group to organize for future attacks. Former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot criticized the peace draft, suggesting it exposed a significant gap between promises and reality.
Hamas has stated that any disarmament would be contingent upon Israel ceasing its military operations and withdrawing from Gaza. A spokesperson from the group emphasized that Israel’s commitment to end hostilities is essential for moving forward.
Differing Views Among Palestinian Factions
The proposed framework has not received uniform acceptance among Palestinian groups. Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a party involved in the original ceasefire, expressed reservations regarding the current form of the agreement.
Meanwhile, the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, intended to govern the area post-conflict, expressed its readiness to take charge and restore essential services.
International Reactions and Concerns
Nickolay Mladenov, the director general of the Board of Peace, acknowledged the potential for the talks to collapse and stressed the importance of effective implementation and verification mechanisms. Mladenov highlighted the need for the Israeli withdrawal to align with the disarmament process.
Mediation by Egypt, Qatar, and Turkiye has been crucial in shaping the framework for this agreement. Egypt plans to facilitate further discussions among the mediators to solidify commitments for the next phase.
International responses varied. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif called for concrete steps in implementing the peace plan and reiterated the importance of Palestinian self-determination. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas considered the plan a potentially constructive step, though stressing that its success relies on fidelity to commitments by the involved parties.
British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband emphasized the need to fully implement the agreement, while German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul welcomed the roadmap but insisted that Hamas should not pose a threat to Israel again. Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot echoed the sentiment, viewing the draft as a crucial opportunity for humanitarian access and movement towards a negotiated two-state solution.
