• Hamas has agreed to a deal for complete disarmament in exchange for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.
• The agreement is part of a U.S.-brokered ceasefire plan, though Israel's commitment remains uncertain.
• Israeli officials express skepticism over the plan, citing the need for genuine Hamas disarmament.
• International responses include cautious optimism, as past agreements have faltered amid mutual distrust.
• Trump has framed the deal as a significant achievement, despite Israeli opposition from some political factions.

A senior Hamas official announced that the Palestinian group has agreed to a deal ensuring its complete disarmament, conditional upon the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. Ghazi Hamad emphasized that Israel would have no role in overseeing the disarmament process, which will be conducted by a Palestinian national committee, and added that "genuine disarmament" is contingent on Israel halting attacks and lifting restrictions on humanitarian aid into Gaza, according to Middle East Eye and Africanews.

U.S. President Donald Trump announced what he termed a "historic agreement" that outlines a roadmap for Hamas's disarmament in stages, allowing for the incremental withdrawal of Israeli forces. The plan is intended to end the ongoing conflict, with Trump declaring it a major milestone. However, skepticism from Israeli officials remains high, as many demand Hamas's full disarmament before any Israeli withdrawal can occur, reports Le Monde and Los Angeles Times.

While Trump insists that Israel is pleased with the deal, far-right Israeli politicians, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, have openly rejected it, describing any cessation of military actions as unacceptable. Ben-Gvir stated that assurances of halting assassinations of Hamas leaders are tantamount to allowing Hamas to regroup, reflecting broader Israeli anxieties about security and military dominance in the region, according to BBC and Al Jazeera.

The agreement stems from a U.S.-led Board of Peace initiative and has been framed as a pathway to governance by a new Palestinian administration. However, previous ceasefire terms have been ignored, leading to doubts about effective implementation of this new framework. The skepticism is compounded by public sentiment in Israel favoring a hardline approach following the October 7 attacks, which reinforced existing tensions, as noted in Le Monde and Al Jazeera.

Meanwhile, international responses range from cautious optimism to caution regarding the potential for lasting peace. Various global leaders are emphasizing the need for both sides to adhere to their commitments, while stressing the importance of humanitarian access and restoration efforts in Gaza, according to Al Jazeera and Le Monde.