Stabilizing Gaza – Securing Israel: The Importance of Disarming Hamas

Vol. 25, No. 16

• Trump’s 20-Point Plan Offers Both Opportunity and Risk. President Trump’s 20-point plan could establish long-term stability and prosperity in Gaza and the broader Middle East – but only if backed by an explicit, enforceable U.S. commitment. Without sustained American and Israeli enforcement, it risks becoming a symbolic gesture rather than a transformative peace framework.
• Hamas Remains the Central Obstacle. Hamas, as an ideologically driven jihadist organization rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood, will not disarm voluntarily. Its shift from overt governance to a covert “ghost” network allows it to infiltrate society and manipulate future governments while evading accountability – a far greater long-term threat.
• International and Arab Forces Are Ill-Equipped to Disarm Hamas. Statements from U.S. officials such as Vice President J.D. Vance reveal that no capable international or Arab security forces exist to enforce disarmament. The IDF remains the only force with the proven will, intelligence, and operational capability to neutralize Hamas’s decentralized terror network.
• Regional Actors Complicate Implementation. Turkey and Qatar – both aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood – continue to finance and politically support Hamas under the guise of humanitarian aid. Without robust transparency and verification mechanisms, these states could undermine any international or Egyptian-led enforcement effort.
• A Strategic Realignment Is Underway. The Trump-MBS-Netanyahu vision represents a pragmatic realignment of U.S., Israeli, and Gulf Arab interests. Focused on countering Iran, promoting Arab-Israeli normalization, and advancing economic modernization, this partnership has redefined Middle East geopolitics by prioritizing security, stability, and shared economic growth over ideological concerns.

The recent release of the remaining surviving Israeli hostages has ushered in a moment of national relief, fragile hope, and also immense risk. U.S. President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan presents both a historic opportunity and a critical test for Israel, the United States, and its allies. The plan, if strategically implemented, could become the foundation for genuine medium- and long-term stability in Gaza and the broader Middle East region. President Trump’s success in coalescing many Arab and Muslim countries to his 20-point plan for stability, peace, and prosperity is unprecedented in the history of the modern Middle East. It should be emphasized that the plan passed its first test in the one-time release of all 20 remaining living hostages kidnapped by Hamas and other jihadi terror groups from Israel on October 7, 2023.

However, the remaining 19 points of the Trump plan will only have the chance of successful implementation if it is backed by explicit American commitment reflecting President Trump’s declared peace-through-strength principle, guaranteeing its public support for Israel’s right to enforce the Trump plan and respond militarily to Hamas violations.

Otherwise, as noted in an October 17, 2025, feature article and interview in Israel’s Globes magazine, the Trump plan will only constitute a one-time hostage release but will not progress to stage two guaranteeing Gaza’s demilitarization and rehabilitation led by non-Hamas and non-PA international forces. Former IDF Chief-of -Staff Gadi Eisenkot on October 20 sharply criticized the plan’s call for international forces on the ground in Gaza, noting it limited Israel’s freedom of action to enforce the agreement. He called on Netanyahu to uphold the cardinal principle that “security responsibility in the [Gaza] Strip must remain in Israel’s hands,” while agreeing that economic and structural rehabilitation can be held by moderate Arab countries.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, Hamas has already delayed and deceived the United States and its international partners. It has failed to return, as per stage one of the agreement, all living and deceased hostages. It has also carried out public assassinations of its political opponents, and attacked an IDF position in Rafah, killing 2 soldiers and wounding others, proving the importance of an American-led no-tolerance policy for Hamas’s brutal violations and the importance of the US-led international commitment of Israel’s right and responsibility to respond forcibly.

A Framework with Promise – and Danger

It comes as no surprise that Hamas is the central obstacle to the Trump plan. It should be emphasized that Hamas, as a jihadist organization bent ideologically and driven religiously to Israel’s destruction as reflected in its 1988 Charter, will not voluntarily relinquish its weapons. This terrorist organization, an ideological precursor to al-Qaeda, is not a conventional political actor, and has expanded its operation to include diplomatic, financial, and media jihad beyond its terror activities in Gaza, Judea, Samaria, to other parts of the Middle East, including Syria, Lebanon, and Turkey.

Hamas continues its jihadist crusade to corner Israel in a so-called “drip terror strategy,” which combines kinetic terror on the ground – limited-scale terror attacks mixed with massive disinformation and deception in legal, diplomatic, and media circles. The strategy clearly girds Hamas’s refusal to disarm and demilitarize, which its leadership has promised to do. Hamas politburo Muhammad Nazzal said Hamas would not commit to disarming but would agree to a five-year “hudna,” the Islamic version of a ceasefire that is only an interim cessation of violence pending Hamas’s ability to resupply, rearm and remobilize its forces. Nazzal called for a five-year “hudna” to buy time in order to control and oversee the rehabilitation of Gaza that would include $70 billion from the international community. This poses a great challenge to the western understanding of “ceasefire” which it views as an interim waystation to a peace agreement that Hamas has no intention of fulfilling.

U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance’s statement “We don’t even have the security infrastructure in place” to disarm Hamas, proves the inherent strategic flaw in Trump’s 20-point plan that rests on the assumption that international and Arab security forces will disarm Hamas and ensure the demilitarization of Gaza. However, Vance’s statement indicates that there are no such forces prepared to undertake such a mission which only the IDF has the proven military will and capabilities to accomplish.

Vance continued and said, “How can we expect to disarm Hamas when Hamas is constituted by 40 different cells?” This points to the difficulty of dismantling what is a deeply decentralized terror network, which only Israel has proved capable of confronting.

Anyone who believes that an international or Arab force will confront Hamas while the terror organization still effectively controls – or even appears to control – Gaza is living in an alternate reality.

Hamas’s apparent willingness to step down as Gaza’s governing authority is a deceptive maneuver that concedes its public role and instead reverts to its DNA: operating as an invisible, clandestine network, that aligns with its Muslim Brotherhood ideology and strategy.

The Trump-proposed Egyptian-led international force to enforce the 20-point plan carries great risks as Hamas will likely sabotage the forces with insurgent tactics reminiscent of the Iranian regime-backed Iraqi Shiite terror group attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, after the U.S. invasion.

Hamas’s transition from above-the-radar military/ terror and governing power to a below-the-radar “ghost” jihadi network poses a greater long-term threat than their current exposed position, enabling them to embed deeper into society, influence elections, and manipulate any future government without the liabilities of public administration. World leaders, including President Trump, risk being misled by surface-level disarmament gestures (influenced and orchestrated by Turkey and Qatar, Muslim Brotherhood governments that are ideologically aligned with Hamas.)

The problem Israel faces now is that with the United States’ first-ever direct negotiations with Hamas – tantamount to negotiating directly with Al-Qaeda or ISIS – constitutes a de facto designation of the terror group as a legitimate political actor against whom it becomes more prohibitive for Israel to take military action in response to political violence and terror.

Hamas’s disarmament, demilitarization, and Gaza’s securitization and rehabilitation by moderate governing regional forces, therefore, cannot depend on goodwill or negotiation alone. It must be the result of sustained pressure, precise military deterrence, and coordinated international enforcement. The history of Gaza’s past ceasefires demonstrates that without ironclad monitoring and clear red lines, Hamas exploits every lull in conflict to rearm, reorganize, and resume aggression.

The Critical Role of the United States

Only the United States possesses the diplomatic reach, strategic leverage, and credibility necessary to enforce this agreement’s provisions. American backing must be explicit, measurable, and continuous – not limited to declarations of intent. For Israel, such U.S. involvement provides both operational depth and international legitimacy, ensuring that our defensive actions are viewed not as unilateral initiatives but as part of a coordinated, rules-based framework.

Phase B of the agreement, which envisions international oversight and a gradual shift from military stabilization to civilian reconstruction, will stand or fall on Washington’s resolve. Without American enforcement – in coordination with Israel and regional partners – Hamas will exploit every gap to reconstitute its terror infrastructure.

Regional Dynamics: The Turkey-Qatar Factor

Beyond Gaza’s borders, two regional actors – Turkey and Qatar – present an ongoing challenge. Both states have positioned themselves as mediators, yet their financial and political patronage of Hamas continues under opaque conditions. Their support often flows through charitable fronts and reconstruction initiatives that mask the rebuilding of terror capacities.

For this reason, any genuine implementation plan must include transparency and verification mechanisms that expose and restrict such covert assistance. The international community must make clear that support for Hamas – direct or indirect – will carry political and economic consequences. Without confronting this regional enabler network, even the most sophisticated disarmament plan will fail.

Three Strategic Pillars for Success

To transform the Trump framework from aspiration into action, I propose a policy anchored in three interconnected pillars:

1. Diplomatic and Security Backing from the United States. The U.S. should lead a coalition of regional and global partners committed to enforcement. Any breach of the agreement – whether by weapons smuggling, missile testing, or financial support for Hamas – must trigger a coordinated diplomatic and, if necessary, military response. This unified stance will deter violations and reinforce the legitimacy of Israel’s security measures.
2. Robust Monitoring and Oversight. Israel and its allies must deploy cutting-edge technological systems and trained personnel to monitor Gaza’s borders, crossings, and key logistical hubs. Oversight should be continuous, data-driven, and internationally verifiable. The goal is to prevent the inflow of weapons and dual-use materials while ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches civilians rather than militants.
3. Economic and Social Development for Deradicalization. Long-term stability depends not only on disarmament but also on addressing the roots of radicalization. Investments in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and employment can create alternatives to extremism. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Morrocco serve as good examples of governments that have reformed educational curricula and partly the public discourse. Programs promoting civic identity, religious moderation, and vocational training must be prioritized. The more Gaza’s youth see opportunity in life rather than martyrdom, the weaker Hamas’s grip will become.

Calibrated Deterrence and Response

A key question remains: how should Israel respond to violations of the agreement? Deterrence must be calibrated, disciplined, and strategically communicated.

Failure to respond decisively invites further violations. Yet overreaction risks alienating allies and eroding Israel’s moral and diplomatic capital. The optimal approach lies in establishing clear operational rules – predefined thresholds for response and transparent coordination with the United States and international actors.

This doctrine of “measured enforcement” allows Israel to defend its security interests while maintaining its standing in the international arena. It underscores that our actions are not impulsive but grounded in law, necessity, and a shared pursuit of peace.

Disarmament as an Ongoing Process

Disarming Hamas cannot be achieved overnight. It will require a multi-phase process integrating security operations, intelligence cooperation, and civilian reconstruction. Controlled dismantling of militias, technological and human monitoring of aid, and transparent regional oversight must progress in tandem.

The United States, Egypt, and moderate Arab states, in particular Saudia Arabia, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates, can play decisive roles in supervising these stages. Their involvement includes sidelining Turkey and Qatar as key actors in involvement in stage two of the plan. Egypt must also be peeled away from the Turkey-Qatar axis and be embraced by the United States and the more amenable Gulf coalition. It ensures credibility and limits accusations of unilateralism. Simultaneously, Israel must promote initiatives that rebuild Gaza’s civil and educational infrastructure while safeguarding against the reemergence of terrorist networks.

Beyond Ceasefire: Toward Sustainable Stability

Ultimately, the true measure of success will not be the absence of rockets but the presence of stability – a Gaza that is demilitarized, economically viable, and governed by pragmatic leadership rather than ideological militancy. That vision can only emerge through persistence, partnership, and clear-eyed realism.

We must resist the illusion that goodwill alone can disarm a jihadist entity. Only through constant exposure of Hamas’s terror, deception, and disinformation and enforcement of measures to confront and deter their malign behavior, can Israel and its allies secure a sustainable future for Gaza and the broader region.

The Trump–MBS–Netanyahu Vision for the Middle East: A Strategic Realignment

The convergence of U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Israeli strategic interests during President Trump’s first presidency (2017–2021) paved the way for a transformative vision in the Middle East. This alignment, championed by President Trump, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was rooted in pragmatic, transactional diplomacy rather than ideological dogma. It was designed to realign regional alliances, counterbalance Iranian influence, and promote economic modernization, even if that meant sidelining traditional liberal democratic norms in favor of achieving stability and national interest.

Strategic Pillars:

1 – Countering Iran as a Unifying Objective:

• Unified Perception of Threat: All three leaders, Trump, Netanyahu, and MBS, concurred that Iran was the principal destabilizing force in the region. Their shared concern led to a coordinated approach to diminish Iran’s influence.
• ⁠Policy Realignment and Maximum Pressure: The U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), heavily influenced by Israeli perspectives, paved the way for the “maximum pressure” campaign. This economic and diplomatic strategy sought to constrain Iran’s activities not only in the nuclear realm, but also across its network of regional proxies.
• ⁠Formation of an Anti-Iran Axis: As a consequence, a tacit coalition emerged that included the United States, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Israel, and the UAE. This partnership aimed to counterbalance Iran’s regional ambitions in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, establishing a common front that would persist beyond traditional alliances.

2 – Advancing Arab-Israeli Normalization:

• The Abraham Accords as a Paradigm Shift: The normalization agreements facilitated by the Trump administration, the Abraham Accords, significantly reshaped regional relations. By bringing Israel and several Arab states together under a framework of diplomatic and economic cooperation, these accords signaled a departure from decades of entrenched hostility.
• ⁠Shifting Regional Priorities: Although Saudi Arabia refrained from formal normalization with Israel during Trump’s first tenure, MBS indicated ideological support for this new alignment. The focus shifted from the Palestinian issue to broader strategic cooperation, aligning with his Vision 2030 agenda and the evolving geopolitical realities of the region.
• ⁠Enhancing Regional Integration: The normalization process opened avenues for increased intelligence sharing, counterterrorism cooperation, and economic partnerships across the region, further bolstering a realigned Middle Eastern order.

3 – Support for Vision 2030 and Economic Diversification:

• Economic Transformation and Modernization: Central to MBS’s agenda was Vision 2030, a sweeping plan designed to diversify the Saudi economy away from oil dependence. This vision emphasized private sector development, technological innovation, and the modernization of social and economic structures.
• ⁠Strategic Partnerships and Technology Transfer: The Trump administration’s support, through large-scale arms sales, technology transfers, and strategic investments, helped facilitate this transformation. Israeli expertise in technology and innovation also played a critical role, reinforcing a symbiotic relationship that bolstered both security and economic interests.
• ⁠Deepening U.S.-Gulf Economic Ties: The resulting economic interdependence between Washington and Riyadh signaled a new era where security and economic modernization went hand in hand, underpinning regional stability through financial and technological leverage.

4 – Transactional Foreign Policy and Regional Stability:

• Pragmatism Over Ideology: Trump’s approach reflected a clear departure from the U.S. tradition of advocating democracy and human rights as preconditions for partnerships. Instead, it prioritized clear, measurable benefits–such as arms deals, direct economic incentives, and burden-sharing arrangements–in exchange for strategic cooperation.

5 – Strategic Retrenchment with Continued Influence:

• Empowering Regional Actors: Gulf states, notably Saudi Arabia and the UAE, were encouraged to assume a more proactive role in regional security matters. This shift not only redistributed power in the region but also underscored the move toward localized solutions supported by robust external partnerships.
• Long-Term Strategic Leverage: By maintaining American influence through economic and diplomatic means rather than military deployment, this vision aimed to create a more sustainable form of engagement that would adjust to the evolving dynamics of the Middle East.

MBS emerges as a pivotal figure in this strategic realignment. His forward-looking Vision 2030 is emblematic of a broader shift, not just in Saudi policy but in regional dynamics as a whole. MBS is determined to modernize Saudi society, transform its economic structures, and position the kingdom as a global player capable of both challenging Iran and engaging in meaningful technological and economic collaboration with international partners. His approach, which blends assertive statecraft with ambitious domestic reforms, represents an evolution in regional leadership that resonates with global trends toward economic diversification and strategic independence.

Conclusion

The Trump–MBS–Netanyahu vision for the Middle East was borne of a confluence of strategic imperatives rather than ideological purity. By prioritizing security cooperation, economic modernization, and the realignment of regional alliances, this vision has redefined traditional geopolitics in the region. Its legacy–evident in the containment of Iranian influence, the acceleration of Arab-Israeli normalization efforts, and the pursuit of ambitious economic reforms–continues to shape the diplomatic and economic contours of the Middle East long after the Trump era. The ongoing influence of this vision is likely to persist as regional players navigate a complex and transforming geopolitical landscape.

Trump’s 20-point plan is thus laying the path to a more stable and prosperous Middle East. Trump sees MBS as the builder of a new globalized Midde East that builds on technology – not terror.

A Strategic and Moral Imperative

The Trump plan offers a rare convergence of opportunity and responsibility. It provides the framework for an enforceable peace – one that links humanitarian reconstruction to verifiable disarmament. Yet it also demands moral clarity and strategic patience.

For Israel, this is not merely a question of security but of national survival and regional leadership. For the United States, it is a test of global credibility – whether it can help translate diplomatic vision into lasting stability.

If implemented with determination and integrity, the agreement could mark a turning point: the moment when the cycle of violence in Gaza begins to give way to a new era of accountability, reconstruction, security, and stability. The path is difficult, but the alternative – a return to endless conflict – is unacceptable.

It is time for Israel and the United States to lead decisively, responsibly, and together. The security of Israel, the stability of the region, and the future of Gaza depend on it.