President Donald Trump’s latest proposal has sparked global headlines, with much of the coverage centered on whether Israel will withdraw from Gaza. It is an important question. Yet a far more consequential one remains: What will it take to fully and verifiably disarm Hamas?
“It’s a step in the right direction,” Lt. Col. Res. Jonathan Conricus, former Israel Defense Forces international spokesperson, told me. “A lot of people in Israel and probably many Gazans want this to succeed desperately.”
For Conricus, success means seeing “Gaza demilitarized, Hamas’s weapons taken away, and a new type of leadership in Gaza take root, one that isn’t about jihad, that isn’t about fighting with Israel, but is about respectful coexistence.”
The vision he described was not one of endless war or permanent Israeli control, but of a demilitarized Gaza led by Palestinians committed to security, stability, and coexistence.
He is right to place disarmament at the center of the debate. Promises on paper cannot protect Israeli civilians, prevent Hamas from rebuilding, or ensure that another Oct. 7, 2023, never occurs. Disarmament must be demonstrated, independently verified, and continuously enforced. His call for new leadership in Gaza that rejects jihad and embraces respectful coexistence also reflects a conclusion we both share: Disarmament cannot be limited to weapons alone.
In my view, in addition to dismantling Hamas’s military capabilities, true disarmament must confront the educational and ideological infrastructure that has exposed children to the glorification of violence, martyrdom, and the destruction of Israel. Weapons can be surrendered. Commanders can be removed. Military infrastructure can be destroyed. But if the ideology that sustains Hamas remains embedded in classrooms, textbooks, mosques, and public institutions, the conditions that produced Oct. 7 will not have been eliminated. They will merely have been passed to another generation.
That is the real measure of disarmament, and it is where Conricus’s analysis and my own perspective converge. The question is not only whether Hamas has fewer weapons but whether Gaza’s children are being educated for peace rather than prepared for another war.
For nearly two years, much of the international conversation has revolved around ceasefires, humanitarian aid, diplomatic pressure, and political timelines. Yet relatively little attention has been devoted to what follows the fighting itself. What would prevent another Oct. 7? What conditions would allow Israelis living near Gaza to believe they can safely return home? And perhaps most importantly, what would convince both Israelis and Palestinians that this conflict is not simply being postponed?
Conricus says the answer begins with verification — “If we’re talking about the real disarmament of Hamas with international verification, then by all means, it could be very positive.” But one question continued to surface as I examined the proposal, and it extends well beyond the language of the agreement itself: How would anyone know that disarmament had actually occurred? What would meaningful verification look like? Who would conduct it? What benchmarks would determine whether disarmament had been achieved?
These are not peripheral questions. They go to the heart of whether the agreement represents a durable security framework or simply another temporary pause whose long-term implementation remains uncertain.
Drawing on Hamas’s history, Conricus warned that any temporary truce must not be allowed to become an opportunity for the terrorist organization to regroup. He referenced the concept of hudna, which he described as a pause in hostilities that may be used by a disadvantaged force to rebuild its strength. “If this is a hudna, a new type of hudna, then it’s not a good thing,” he said.
His point was not theological but strategic. Without credible verification, temporary calm could provide Hamas with time to regroup, rearm, and rebuild. A ceasefire that merely resets the clock until the next attack cannot be mistaken for lasting peace.
The reported framework attempts to address that danger. According to publicly available details, Hamas would be expected to surrender not only heavy weaponry but also small arms, tunnel maps, weapons production facilities, and other military infrastructure. The process would require independent international verification before any Israeli withdrawal.
“The language is pretty clear,” Conricus explained. “It’s supposed to be all of the weapons, from the big long-range rockets and what’s left of them to the AK-47s, and Hamas is supposed to hand over maps of all of their tunnel infrastructure, their weapons manufacturing sites, all of it.”
That sequencing may ultimately determine whether the proposal succeeds or joins a long list of failed agreements.
Another reality often lost in international coverage is that Israel has no genuine interest in remaining inside Gaza indefinitely. Its objective is to ensure that the territory no longer serves as a launching pad for attacks against Israeli civilians.
“Israel does not have any interest, any real interest, in staying in Gaza,” Conricus said. “What Israel wants is for Israelis in the kibbutzim, the communities on the other side of the border, those who were attacked and slaughtered by Hamas on Oct. 7, to be safe.”
That safety, he argued, requires ensuring that Gaza can no longer be controlled by a terrorist organization committed to attacking Israel.
In his view, Israeli withdrawal hinges on whether Hamas is fully disarmed and whether that disarmament can be independently verified. “If this can be achieved through the disarmament of Hamas, then I think Israel will be very quick to withdraw,” he said. “But what this hinges on is whether or not Hamas will actually be disarmed, if there will be independent verification that the weapons have indeed been handed over.”
Once that condition is satisfied, Conricus believes Israel will follow through. “Once that is done, and there’s verification of it, then Israel, according to the agreement, is supposed to withdraw,” he said. “And I think Israel will do that. It has every interest to do so.”
This is precisely why the international debate should not begin and end with Israeli withdrawal. Withdrawal is an action that can be observed. Genuine disarmament is far more difficult to measure, particularly when dealing with a terrorist organization that has spent years embedding its military infrastructure within civilian areas and beneath the ground.
As policymakers debate withdrawals and timelines, the lasting measure of success may not be who leaves Gaza first. It may be whether Hamas’s weapons are truly gone, whether its tunnels and military infrastructure have been dismantled, whether the ideology sustaining its violence is finally confronted, and whether an independent authority can verify continued compliance.
ISRAEL’S FUTURE IS IN JEOPARDY IF IT BECOMES A SINGLE-PARTY CAUSE
The question is not simply whether Israel will withdraw. It is whether Gaza can emerge with Palestinian leadership committed to coexistence rather than jihad, an educational system that prepares children for life rather than war, and a security framework that protects civilians on both sides while preventing Hamas or any successor from rebuilding the machinery of terror.
Anything less is not lasting peace. It is merely another pause before the next war.
Ariella Noveck is a journalist specializing in antisemitism and Middle East affairs, with extensive experience covering Jewish communities worldwide.