Hamas Says No Weapons Handover Before Full Israeli Withdrawal: Contradiction—or the Central Condition Hidden Inside Trump’s Gaza Deal?
Hamas official Ghazi Hamad says weapons will not be handed over before Israel withdraws and reconstruction begins. The statement contradicts claims of immediate disarmament but may still fit a phased roadmap linking each weapons step to an Israeli pullback.
Hamas official Ghazi Hamad says the movement will not take action on disarmament before Israel withdraws from Gaza.
He also says Israel will have no role in the weapons process, which would instead be overseen by a Palestinian national committee.
The statement directly contradicts any claim that Hamas has already surrendered its weapons or accepted immediate unconditional disarmament.
It does not necessarily prove that the new Gaza roadmap has collapsed.
The agreement announced by Donald Trump is described as phased and reciprocal.
Under that structure, Hamas and other factions would inventory, store or decommission weapons while Israel withdraws in stages and new Palestinian security institutions enter.
The dispute concerns sequencing.
Trump presents Hamas’s acceptance of the overall roadmap as agreement to disarm.
Hamad emphasises that no physical step will occur before Israeli obligations begin.
Both descriptions can refer to the same document while creating radically different public expectations.
Israel wants weapons removed first because it does not trust Hamas to comply after troops withdraw.
Hamas wants withdrawal first because it does not trust Israel to leave after the group loses its military leverage.
This is the central security dilemma of the deal.
Each side is asked to give up the tool it believes guarantees compliance by the other.
A phased process is designed to solve that problem.
Israel could leave one defined zone after specified weapons are declared or secured. International monitors could verify both actions before the next stage.
The challenge is that even the first step requires trust in the verifier.
Who decides that Israel has genuinely withdrawn? Does aerial control count as occupation? Are buffer zones permitted? Can troops return after a suspected violation?
Who decides that Hamas has surrendered all weapons in one category? What happens to hidden rockets, tunnels and personal firearms?
Hamas’s language also distinguishes between weapons handover and Palestinian control.
The movement may be willing to transfer heavy weapons to a national committee without accepting the Israeli demand for complete demilitarisation.
That committee could store arms, dismantle them or hold them as part of a future Palestinian security structure.
Israel may view storage under Palestinian control as insufficient if Hamas members can later regain access.
The dispute therefore involves sovereignty as much as security.
Palestinians ask why Israel can maintain an army, control borders and conduct strikes while Gaza must become entirely disarmed.
Israel answers that Hamas used Gaza to launch the October 7 attack and cannot retain the capacity to repeat it.
Both arguments are politically powerful.
Reconstruction is another condition.
Hamad says discussions about arms are inseparable from rebuilding Gaza.
Donors and Israel may insist that reconstruction money will not flow while armed factions retain independent military infrastructure.
Hamas may say disarmament cannot precede guarantees that destroyed homes, hospitals and utilities will actually be restored.
This creates another circular problem.
No reconstruction without disarmament. No disarmament without reconstruction and withdrawal.
Trump’s Board of Peace hopes to break the circle through the NCAG, the International Stabilization Force and external funding.
The institutions remain largely untested.
The public contradiction may also be intentional.
Trump needs a victory statement. Hamas needs to tell supporters it did not surrender before occupation ended.
Ambiguous language can keep negotiations alive by allowing both sides to preserve dignity.
It becomes dangerous when one side later treats its public version as the binding text.
If Washington expects immediate weapons surrender while Hamas expects complete withdrawal first, implementation will fail at the first checkpoint.
The written roadmap and verification schedule matter more than speeches.
Egypt, Qatar and Turkey must clarify whether Hamas accepted an enforceable timetable for weapons or only agreed to continue discussing one.
Israel must state whether it accepted a corresponding timetable for withdrawal.
The latest reporting suggests a broad multiphase plan exists, but final implementation details are still being negotiated.
That makes Trump’s claim of completed disarmament premature and Hamad’s statement a warning rather than necessarily a rejection.
The open question is whether the ambiguity is a bridge that allows both sides to begin—or a hidden contradiction that will become visible only after Hamas refuses the first weapons transfer and Israel refuses the first withdrawal.