Gaza Ceasefire Enters Second Phase: The Deep Game Behind Trump's Announcement of Hamas Disarmament
30/01/2026
On January 29, 2026, in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, U.S. President Donald Trump held a conversation with his special advisor, Steve Witkoff, regarding the situation in Gaza. Trump announced to those present that it appeared Hamas was going to disarm, while Witkoff more directly asserted that the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement would hand over their AK-47s, leaving them with no other choice. This statement marked an attempt to move into the second phase of the fragile ceasefire agreement that took effect on October 10, 2025, which centers on the disarmament of Hamas. However, in the Gaza Strip, more than half of the land remains under the control of the Israel Defense Forces, Hamas officials have never confirmed abandoning their weapons, and local residents continue to endure blockade and scarcity amid winter storms. A vast gap exists between Trump's optimistic declaration and the complex reality on the ground in Gaza.
The fragile framework of the ceasefire agreement and its actual progress.
This peace process, known as the Trump 20-Point Plan, achieved its first major milestone with a hostage exchange as its core accomplishment. Under the agreement, Hamas released the remains of the last Israeli hostage it held, Raan Gevili, while Israel freed a number of Palestinian prisoners. Trump himself acknowledged that Hamas assisted in returning the remains, and the family was deeply grateful. This exchange provided a temporary pause in the intense conflict that had lasted for two years. However, a ceasefire does not equal peace. Since October 10, 2025, the Israel Defense Forces have reported conducting at least two precision strikes in southern Gaza, targeting Hamas operatives allegedly planning imminent terrorist attacks. According to data from local health authorities in Gaza, nearly 500 Palestinians have been killed during the ceasefire period due to airstrikes and clashes, including at least 100 children; on the Israeli side, 3 soldiers have also lost their lives.
The second phase blueprint of the agreement is even more ambitious and controversial. It consists of three pillars: the disarmament of Hamas, the establishment of a technocrat-led transitional government, and the initiation of large-scale reconstruction. Vitkov announced that the United States has, for the first time, established a technocratic, all-Arab government, namely the so-called Peace Committee and a Palestinian Committee of Technical Experts. However, the specific members, operational methods, and funding sources of this transitional administrative body remain unclear to this day. The United Nations estimates that reconstructing this devastated land will require over 50 billion dollars, while the currently pledged funds are minimal. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's attitude toward the second phase has been described by former diplomat Alon Liel as reluctant acceptance; he is facing political challenges and did not originally intend to end the war.
Core Contradiction: The Red Line of Disarmament and Geopolitical Game
All contradictions converge on one point: whether and how Hamas will disarm. The confidence of Trump and Vitkov sharply contrasts with Hamas's consistent public stance. Hamas has repeatedly made it clear that disarmament is a red line. Israeli intelligence indicates that by the end of 2025, Hamas still retains approximately 60,000 Kalashnikov rifles in Gaza. Despite immense pressure, the organization's statements have always maintained strategic ambiguity: it has hinted that it might consider transferring weapons to a Palestinian authority or freezing weapons under a long-term ceasefire, but it will never surrender them to Israel or an international force designated by the United States.
The deeper contention lies in who will lead and oversee the disarmament process. Former Israeli Foreign Ministry Director-General Alon Liel analyzed that Hamas would lay down their weapons if they felt there were individuals they could deeply trust. They trust Turkey and Qatar. These two countries have close ties with Hamas and are seen as potential credible mediators. However, Israel firmly opposes Turkey and Qatar playing a central role on the ground in Gaza, fearing this would indirectly consolidate Hamas's influence. On the other hand, the United States plans to form an international stabilization force to be stationed in Gaza to handle security and disarmament tasks. Countries such as Indonesia and Bangladesh have expressed interest, but none have publicly committed to sending troops. Many Gaza residents strongly oppose this. A resident named Rami stated: We view any international military force entering the region as a new form of occupation.
Israel's troop withdrawal is another critical obstacle. Currently, the Israeli Defense Forces still control approximately 53% of the Gaza Strip, primarily consisting of buffer zones and security corridors along the border. Netanyahu faces significant pressure from his domestic far-right coalition to maintain a military presence in Gaza. He described the U.S. announcement of entering the second phase as a declarative move, implying a lack of substantive action. The actual control over Gaza is fragmented—Hamas retains parts of its underground networks and weapons, Israel controls large swaths of ground areas, an untested technocratic committee attempts to manage civilian affairs, and an international force yet to take shape plans to deploy in the future—this situation lays the groundwork for renewed conflict.
The Humanitarian Reality in Gaza and the Geopolitical Vision of the United States
Trump's peace plan is not short of grand reconstruction visions: coastal tourism zones, data centers, airports. Witkov even referred to Gaza as a beautiful piece of real estate on social media. However, these blueprints starkly contrast with the present reality of Gaza. Two consecutive years of war have turned most of this 365-square-kilometer narrow strip into ruins, with the vast majority of its 2.3 million population displaced. Winter storms have worsened the survival crisis, and the entry of aid supplies remains strictly restricted. The words of Gaza resident Mohammed are cold and direct: The situation remains the same. Hunger is hunger, suffering is suffering, poverty is poverty, bombing is bombing—all unchanged.
This reality reveals the structural flaws of the peace process: it is overly focused on high-level political and military arrangements, yet disconnected from the urgent needs of the local population. Palestinian political analyst and former PLO advisor Xavier Abu Eid points out that a segment of the international community has completely normalized the deaths of Palestinians, while simultaneously labeling the current situation a diplomatic success. The peace commission promoted by the United States faces legitimacy challenges; it does not stem from internal Palestinian political reconciliation (such as between Fatah and Hamas), nor is it elected, and its authority relies entirely on support from external forces. This makes it difficult to gain widespread acceptance among the people of Gaza, let alone take over power from Hamas.
From a strategic perspective, the Trump administration attempted to strip Hamas of its popular base and social functions through technocratic governance and economic reconstruction. Hamas is not merely a military organization; it has long provided social services such as education and healthcare in Gaza. Replacing these functions with a new, efficient administrative body is a potential prerequisite for its disarmament. However, establishing an effective government on the ruins requires massive funding, security guarantees, and political consensus—none of which are currently available. The United States hopes that Arab nations will provide the funds, but their willingness to invest remains questionable as they witness the ongoing suffering in Gaza and Israel's incomplete withdrawal of troops.
The stalemate in Gaza epitomizes the shifting power dynamics in the Middle East. The United States attempts to swiftly broker a deal through unilateral plans, yet overlooks the historical depth and national sentiment dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Hamas has suffered significant military setbacks, its political capital as a symbol of Palestinian resistance remains unexhausted. Within the Israeli government, internal contradictions abound—unable to completely eradicate Hamas, yet unwilling to accept a new Gaza authority that might be indirectly influenced by Hamas. Regional nations such as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia remain vigilant about the risk of spillover from the Gaza crisis, while simultaneously maintaining a cautious distance from U.S.-led initiatives.
Washington's optimistic declaration and the brutal reality on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean depict two trajectories that have yet to converge. Disarmament is not a tactical objective achievable through presidential assertions, but a complex strategic process involving trust, security, power, and survival. When Trump says they have no choice, he may underestimate the resilience and adaptability of a movement that has survived for decades in ruins. The second phase in Gaza is destined not to be a smooth path, but a difficult trek through a minefield, where every step is fraught with uncertainty. The true mark of peace is not the confident proclamations in the White House meeting room, but the nights when children in Gaza can sleep soundly, and the sound of bulldozers clearing rubble rather than building walls. That day still seems far away.