Some may find the question in the headline surprising. Did Hamas actually sign US President Donald Trump’s Gaza plan?
Some argue that it did, while others maintain that Hamas never approved the plan in full and instead gave only partial consent.
The author had not initially intended to address the issue, but reconsidered after hearing two Palestinian public figures deeply involved in Palestinian affairs claim that Hamas had signed or approved Trump’s plan. One heads a research centre and appeared alongside the author on Al Jazeera Mubasher, while the other is a prominent Palestinian figure based in the West who appeared with him on another Al Jazeera programme.
The distinction is fundamental. There is a major difference between approving a document as a whole and agreeing to certain provisions, speaking positively about the efforts behind it, or referring unresolved matters to a broader Palestinian national framework because they do not concern Hamas alone.
That is precisely the position Hamas adopted.
What Hamas Officially Approved
In the statement issued on 3 October 2025, whose substance was also approved by the Palestinian resistance factions, Hamas declared:
“The Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas appreciates the Arab, Islamic and international efforts, as well as the efforts of US President Donald Trump, calling for an end to the war on the Gaza Strip, an exchange of prisoners, the immediate entry of aid, the rejection of the occupation of the Strip and the rejection of the displacement of our Palestinian people from it.
“Within that framework, and in a manner that achieves an end to the war and a complete withdrawal from the Strip, the movement announces its approval of the release of all occupation prisoners, both living and deceased, in accordance with the exchange formula contained in President Trump’s proposal and subject to the provision of the necessary conditions on the ground for the exchange process. In this context, the movement affirms its readiness to immediately enter negotiations through the mediators to discuss the details.
“The movement also reiterates its approval of transferring the administration of the Gaza Strip to a Palestinian body of independents, or technocrats, based on Palestinian national consensus and with Arab and Islamic support.
“As for the other issues contained in President Trump’s proposal concerning the future of the Gaza Strip and the inherent rights of the Palestinian people, these are linked to a unified national position and must be addressed in accordance with the relevant international laws and resolutions. They will be discussed through a comprehensive Palestinian national framework in which Hamas will participate and contribute with full responsibility.”
Hamas was therefore clear and specific about the provisions it accepted from the plan’s 20 points.
Its approval focused primarily on matters associated with what became known as the first phase of the agreement, particularly those that aligned with the objectives of the resistance and Gaza’s popular base: ending the war, allowing aid to enter, rejecting displacement and conducting a prisoner exchange.
All other issues concerning Gaza’s future and the rights of the Palestinian people were explicitly referred to a comprehensive Palestinian national position.
What Was Signed in Sharm El-Sheikh?
The negotiations that followed in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, were limited to implementing the first phase of the agreement.
What Hamas and the other resistance factions approved or signed on 9 October 2025 concerned only the details of that first phase.
These included the prisoner exchange mechanism, the number of Palestinian prisoners to be released, the entry of aid and Gaza’s humanitarian requirements, including 600 trucks per day, the temporary Israeli withdrawal lines and the return of displaced Palestinians.
In its official statement on the agreement, Hamas reaffirmed the fundamental principles to which it remained committed.
The statement concluded:
“We affirm that the sacrifices of our people will not be in vain, that we will remain faithful to our pledge and that we will not abandon our people’s national rights until freedom, independence and self-determination are achieved.”
Nothing in Hamas’s official literature, statements or the formal declarations of its leaders indicates full approval of Trump’s plan.
Political wording may differ from one Hamas leader to another, but there is no disagreement over rejecting any attempt to subordinate Gaza’s future, the Palestinian national decision or the right to resist the enemy to Trump’s plan or the so-called Board of Peace.
All such questions have consistently been referred to internal Palestinian national consensus.
Why Full Approval Would Have Produced Different Results
Had Hamas and the resistance factions accepted Trump’s plan in full from the outset, mechanisms for transferring control of Gaza, surrendering weapons and deploying an “International Stabilisation Force” would have begun months ago.
There would also have been no need for the Israeli occupation to continue its suffocating blockade, military aggression and assassinations of resistance leaders, while expanding its occupation from 52 per cent to 70 per cent of the Gaza Strip and intensifying pressure on both the resistance and its popular base.
Part of the confusion may have resulted from Trump’s own positive response to Hamas’s statement.
Trump welcomed Hamas’s reply and sought to build upon it as evidence of what he viewed as the success of his efforts to end the war.
Some newspaper and website headlines also described Hamas as having approved the plan without specifying the scope or limits of that approval, often reflecting the message their editors sought to convey.
Netanyahu Viewed Hamas’s Response as a Rejection
Notably, Netanyahu himself was reportedly surprised by Trump’s reaction to Hamas’s statement.
According to Axios on 4 October 2025, an Israeli official said Netanyahu had regarded Hamas’s reply as a rejection of the plan during consultations held before Trump announced his position.
Israeli technical officials, however, reportedly considered Hamas’s response positive and believed it opened the way for an agreement.
When the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement was reached, Trump was entirely clear that “Israel” and Hamas had signed the “first phase” of his plan, not the plan in its entirety.
Israel Obstructed the First Phase
The first phase remained stalled because the occupation refused to fully implement its provisions.
Israel continued its attacks on Gaza, including killings, assassinations and destruction, while further expanding its territorial control and supporting armed proxy militias.
During the eight months following the agreement, Israel allowed the entry of only 36 per cent of the aid trucks that were supposed to reach Gaza.
It also insisted that Hamas begin surrendering its weapons.
Under those conditions, the first phase remained obstructed and no suitable environment emerged for entering the second phase.
Mladenov’s Proposal and the Disarmament Dispute
When Nikolay Mladenov, who took over executive responsibility for Trump’s plan, presented proposals for moving into the second phase, his 15-point programme submitted on 19 April 2026 treated the disarmament of the resistance as a foundational measure.
This reflected the Israeli-American position.
Hamas and the resistance factions rejected that provision in their memorandum and proposed amendments submitted on 13 June 2026.
Throughout the process, Hamas and the resistance factions maintained that armed resistance is a legitimate right.
They linked any willingness to surrender weapons to the day after the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state.
They also argued that the resistance, its members and Gaza’s popular base could not be placed at the mercy of an Israeli authority that had repeatedly demonstrated brutality and violated agreements and commitments.
Nor, they said, could weapons be surrendered while armed proxy groups continued operating inside Gaza, spreading disorder and targeting the resistance, its members and other honourable Palestinians in the enclave.
It was evident that Israeli officials preferred the continuation of chaos and the unrestricted violation of Gaza, as expressed by Defence Minister Israel Katz, because such conditions could be used as instruments of blackmail and pressure against the resistance and its popular base.
Washington May Be Seeking a Way Around the Weapons Issue
Hamas and the resistance factions have continued to reject disarmament.
At the same time, the US administration and other international actors recognise that Hamas cannot be forcibly disarmed after Israel itself failed to achieve that objective during two years of genocidal war.
No country has shown a willingness to act as Israel’s proxy in carrying out such a task.
Recent American leaks and signals therefore suggest that Washington may be seeking a practical mechanism to move beyond the “weapons obstacle” without proposing arrangements that Hamas and the resistance factions would reject outright.
The objective appears to be advancing the remaining steps while finding an alternative formula for handling the question of resistance weapons.
The Resistance’s Four Red Lines
Hamas and the Palestinian resistance factions are seeking to uphold four red lines concerning the second phase and the future of Gaza.
1. Preserving the Weapons of the Resistance
Any arrangements concerning resistance weapons must remain an internal Palestinian matter.
Their surrender must be linked to the liberation project and the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state.
2. A Complete Israeli Withdrawal
Israeli forces must withdraw fully from the Gaza Strip.
3. Palestinian National Consensus
All matters concerning Gaza’s future, the rights of the Palestinian people and broader Palestinian national issues must be discussed and agreed upon through a comprehensive Palestinian national framework.
Hamas and the resistance factions must be part of that framework.
4. Meeting Gaza’s Needs and Beginning Reconstruction
All of Gaza’s humanitarian and material needs must be met.
Aid must enter the enclave, and the reconstruction process must be activated.
Hamas and the resistance factions therefore approved only the first phase of Trump’s plan.
They have not abandoned the red lines they have consistently maintained.
This is why the Israeli occupation continues to use military, security, political, economic and humanitarian pressure in an attempt to subjugate Gaza.
The resistance, meanwhile, continues to hold its ground.
That confrontation remains the central reason for the continuing deadlock over arrangements for Gaza’s future.
