Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

By: Fern Sidman-Jewish Voice News

As the United States intensifies pressure to launch the second phase of President Donald Trump’s Gaza ceasefire agreement, Israel is sounding increasingly urgent alarms: Qatar and Turkey—two of Hamas’s most enduring patrons—are maneuvering to shield the terrorist organization from disarmament as it seeks to reassert control over the fractured and war-scarred enclave.

 

According to a detailed report that appeared on Monday in The Algemeiner, Israeli officials view the diplomatic choreography unfolding in Doha, Ankara, and Washington with mounting unease, warning that seemingly technical disputes over timelines, withdrawal sequences, and oversight structures mask a far more consequential geopolitical struggle—one that may ultimately determine whether Hamas remains an armed force capable of dictating the fate of two million Gazans.

The concern in Jerusalem is bluntly stated: Hamas is exploiting the diplomatic vacuum between phase one and phase two of Trump’s ceasefire plan to rebuild, reorganize, and reimpose terroristic rule over the 47 percent of Gaza that Israel does not directly control. Any delay in its disarmament, Israeli officials argue, risks cementing Hamas’s return to dominance, undoing the fragile gains of the past months and imperiling the prospects of genuine post-war reconstruction.

According to Israeli media accounts described in The Algemeiner report, Qatar and Turkey have advanced a series of proposals intended to replace the central pillar of Trump’s peace plan: the requirement that Hamas disarm fully and permanently in the early stages of phase two.

Rather than overseeing a formal surrender of arms, Qatari and Turkish officials have proposed that Hamas either transfer its arsenal to the Palestinian Authority, or store its weapons in internationally supervised depots, where they would remain intact under “freeze” conditions.

Compounding Israeli concerns, both Qatar and Turkey reportedly support granting Hamas a two-year grace period during which it may legally retain its weapons—effectively postponing disarmament until at least 2027.

For Israeli leadership, this is not compromise but capitulation. Officials told The Algemeiner these proposals would “institutionalize Hamas’s military power,” allowing the group to rebuild political, financial, and military capabilities under international protection.

Far from ushering in post-war stabilization, Israel argues, such a framework would reward Hamas’s intransigence and tacitly reaffirm its control over the Gaza Strip.

Israel has repeatedly insisted it will grant Hamas only a matter of months—not years—to give up its weapons. Jerusalem has privately warned Washington, Doha, and Ankara that if Hamas does not disarm voluntarily and swiftly, Israel “will act unilaterally” to remove the organization’s military capabilities, according to The Algemeiner report.

This position is rooted in bitter experience: Hamas has ruled Gaza for nearly twenty years, tolerating no dissent, crushing rival factions, and allowing international agencies to operate only within the boundaries of its authoritarian regime.

“Hamas must not be permitted to use humanitarian pauses or diplomatic ambiguity to reconstitute its forces,” an Israeli official told The Algemeiner. “The lessons of the past two decades—and especially of October 7—are too grave to ignore.”

Trump’s peace plan, which came into effect in October, mandated the release of all remaining hostages abducted during Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023 massacre. In exchange, Israel agreed to release thousands of Palestinian prisoners and detainees, including many serving life sentences, withdraw the IDF to a newly drawn “Yellow Line,” effectively bisecting the Gaza Strip, and permit Hamas civilian administrators to resume limited functions under international monitoring.

As The Algemeiner report noted, the territorial map created by this arrangement leaves Israel in control of 53 percent of Gaza, with Hamas asserting authority over the remaining 47 percent—areas that also contain the overwhelming majority of Gaza’s population.

In these neighborhoods, Hamas has moved rapidly to reinstate its governance machinery. Reports cited by The Algemeiner describe a severe crackdown, including violent suppression of rivals, public punishments, forced seizures of weapons, and intimidation of clans perceived as cooperating with Israel.

The second stage of Trump’s plan outlines a comprehensive transition including the establishment of an interim technocratic government to administer Gaza, deployment of an International Stabilization Force (ISF) to assume security responsibilities, and gradual but irreversible demilitarization of Hamas and other armed groups.

This phase is envisioned as the moment at which Hamas effectively loses its military capacity and political dominance.

But Qatar and Turkey—both of whom have hosted Hamas leaders, financed Hamas activities, and publicly championed the organization—say phase two cannot begin until Israel fully withdraws from Gaza.

During a weekend press conference, Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani claimed the ceasefire is “not complete” until Israel withdraws completely from Gaza. According to his remarks, cited by The Algemeiner, such withdrawal is a prerequisite for “stability,” freedom of movement, and the establishment of political structures needed for demilitarization.

Turkey’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan reinforced this position, arguing that Hamas cannot disarm until a “credible Palestinian civil administration” exists, and a “trained police force” is ready to take control.

To Israeli officials, these conditions amount to a strategic sleight of hand. They fear that withdrawal before disarmament would allow Hamas to rebuild military infrastructure undisturbed, reconstitute its paramilitary forces, reassert totalitarian control over civilian life, and undermine any emerging technocratic governance or stabilization forces.

Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, IDF Chief of Staff, stated unequivocally that Israel will not withdraw “until Hamas is fully disarmed.”

“The Yellow Line is a new defensive line,” he said, “and Israel will remain on these positions as long as necessary to protect our communities and sustain operational momentum.”

For its part, Hamas remains openly defiant. Senior officials have refused all proposals for actual disarmament, whether immediate or delayed. The group is prepared only to consider storing weapons, freezing weapons, or placing weapons under international observation for a limited period.

As Hamas spokesman Basem Naim told reporters in comments referenced by The Algemeiner, the organization insists on maintaining the “right of the Palestinians to defend themselves”—a phrase widely interpreted as a euphemism for retaining rockets, rifles, tunnels, and paramilitary units.

“Hamas will discuss these ideas only within the context of a long-term truce that leads to the establishment of a Palestinian state,” Naim added.

While diplomatic negotiations unfold abroad, conditions inside Gaza reveal a stark picture of Hamas’s intentions. As documented in The Algemeiner report, Hamas has intensified internal repression since the ceasefire took effect.

One focal point of instability has been the death of Yasser Abu Shabab, leader of a Bedouin anti-Hamas faction in Rafah. Abu Shabab—one of the few figures who resisted Hamas’s authority—died under murky circumstances last week while mediating an internal dispute. His death has created a vacuum Hamas is now exploiting.

Within hours, Hamas issued a 10-day ultimatum ordering rival militants to surrender their weapons in exchange for dubious promises of amnesty. Social media videos circulating widely show brutal scenes: masked Hamas operatives beating detainees, executing alleged collaborators, and patrolling streets with unchecked brutality.

According to assessments cited in The Algemeiner report, these actions indicate not desperation but renewed confidence—Hamas senses that the diplomatic environment may yet shift in its favor.

What emerges from this complex diplomatic and military tableau is a stark divergence in objectives: Israel demands irreversible disarmament before withdrawal, the US seeks rapid progress toward phase two and a stable administrative authority and Qatar and Turkey are working to preserve Hamas’s political leverage. Hamas aims to survive, rebuild, and ultimately regain uncontested authority over Gaza.

For Israel, the disarmament of Hamas is not merely a political requirement—it is a national security obligation.

For Qatar and Turkey, weakening Hamas risks diminishing their strategic influence in the region.

For Hamas, disarmament is existentially unacceptable.

As The Algemeiner report noted, the stakes of the coming months could not be higher. Either phase two produces a genuine demilitarization and transition to a new governing authority—or the Gaza Strip risks returning to the same cycle of militarization, authoritarian rule, and conflict that defined its past two decades.

Israel is preparing for both possibilities. Those close to the process warn that if diplomacy fails, Jerusalem may choose force over compromise.

And this time, the world may not be able to restrain it.