Washington, for its part, maintains that ending the war requires the release of all hostages, the expulsion of armed leadership from Gaza, and the advancement to a supervised technocratic administration.
Central message: without disarmament, there is no stable peace Hamas's explicit refusal to lay down arms—and its claim of "resistance"—demonstrates the fragility of the ceasefire. The distinction between "freezing" and "disarming" exposes the main crack in the negotiation.
Regional implications and mediation Qatar and Turkey, historical sponsors of Hamas, seek to influence adjustments to the scheme—especially in the disarmament clause—while Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain express reservations about the protagonism of Doha and Ankara. The proposal also provides for a transitional administration with external verification and the exclusion of armed structures from local governance.
Hamas denies disarming Since the plan's announcement, Hamas leaders have reiterated that they will not hand over their arsenal. By not handing over its arsenal, the movement also does not renounce its declared jihad against Israel and those who do not adhere to its program.
Fragile truce and "freezing" of arms In parallel, regional mediators described a formula for "freezing" the use of Hamas's arms—not their handover—within a renewable ceasefire. In this context, any truce looks provisional and exposed to rearmament, which strains the plan's viability and regional security.
Status of the truce and next steps After the release of the last living hostages and prisoner exchanges, the White House declared the end of the war; however, recent incidents and military responses exhibit the volatile nature of the ceasefire. This position, admitted by Egyptian sources, clashes with the letter of the plan that demands disarming and dismantling offensive capabilities.
