Hamas's War on Trump's Board of Peace

The Iran-backed Hamas terrorist group has suddenly stepped up its rhetorical attacks on US President Donald J. Trump's Board of Peace. They are accusing the body of promoting the Israeli narrative, failing to pressure Israel and interfering in Palestinian affairs.

There is something else that deserves attention: the timing.

Just days before the terrorist group launched its latest campaign against the Board of Peace, a senior Hamas delegation traveled to Tehran and met with senior Iranian officials, including Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf.

Is this a coincidence? It may be. However, the timing raises an important question that the Trump Administration and the Board of Peace should not ignore: Is Iran encouraging Hamas to resist or delay the implementation of the US peace plan for Gaza, particularly the demand that Hamas surrender its weapons and relinquish control of the Gaza Strip?

Hamas's own statements suggest that the terrorist group is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the direction of Trump's peace process.

The Hamas delegation that visited Tehran was headed by Bassem Naim, head of Hamas's Arab and Islamic Relations Office, and included senior Hamas figures Osama Hamdan, Mahmoud Mardawi, and Khaled al-Qaddoumi.

According to Hamas, the delegation discussed with the Iranian officials the latest developments in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, as well as Hamas's discussions with mediators and representatives of the Board of Peace concerning the implementation of the second phase of the Trump peace plan.

Hamas claimed that it remains committed to the plan and the Board of Peace's recent roadmap.

Shortly after the meeting in Tehran, Hamas stepped up its rhetorical attacks on the Board of Peace.

Hamas's visit to Iran deserves attention. The Iranian regime has for decades supported Hamas politically, financially, and militarily. Hamas itself has publicly thanked Iran for its support during the delegation's recent visit to Tehran and emphasized the importance of continued consultation and coordination.

The Hamas delegation went to Tehran, discussed the Board of Peace's roadmap, and then returned to publicly attack the body responsible for implementing it.

At the very least, this should prompt the Trump Administration and the Board of Peace to ask: What was discussed in Tehran? Did the Iranian regime encourage Hamas to stand firm against disarmament? Did the two sides discuss ways to preserve Hamas's military capabilities? Did Iran seek to exploit Hamas's position as part of its broader confrontation with the United States?

There is enough in Hamas's own statements to justify asking these questions. The danger is that the international community may once again mistake Hamas's willingness to negotiate for a willingness to surrender its weapons.

The two are quite different.

Hamas, like Iran, has made commitments before. Hamas, like Iran, has also repeatedly demonstrated that it views negotiations as a means of delaying compliance, preserving its power and advancing its strategic objectives.

The latest dispute erupted after the Board of Peace reposted on X an article by Palestinian-American writer Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib from the New York Times. Alkhatib, a prominent Palestinian political analyst from the Gaza Strip who lives in the United States, argued that Gaza needs a fundamentally different future – one based on self-government, prosperity, and deradicalization rather than perpetual conflict.

Alkhatib wrote that the Gaza Strip should become "the pride of the Palestinian people" and a model of effective Palestinian self-governance. He also called for deep deradicalization in schools, mosques, the media, and public discourse.

Hamas did not welcome these ideas. Instead, Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem accused the Board of Peace of publishing material containing "incorrect information" and "biased opinions" that were unfair to the Palestinians and their "resistance."

Qassem demanded that the Board of Peace maintain a "balanced and objective discourse" and refrain from publishing material that, in Hamas's view, adopts the narrative of the "Zionist occupation."

Bassem Naim, another senior Hamas official, was even more explicit. He accused the Board of Peace of becoming a "media activist" and of publishing what he described as "destructive nonsense."

Hamas's reaction is revealing.

The terrorist group does not merely object to specific policies. It appears to object to the very idea that Palestinians – particularly those living in the Gaza Strip – might begin discussing a future without Hamas domination, without armed "resistance," and without the ideology that has brought the Gaza Strip decades of war and destruction.

The Board of Peace's reposting of Alkhatib's article apparently touched a nerve when the article directly challenged the very foundations of Hamas's political and ideological narrative.

Alkhatib argued that Gaza cannot have a future as long as Hamas remains in power, called for Hamas to be excluded from governance, rejected the glorification of "resistance," and said that Gaza needs deradicalization in its schools, mosques, media, and public discourse.

Alkhatib was not simply criticizing Hamas; he was arguing for a Gaza without Hamas rule, without its weapons, and without the ideology that has sustained its power.

Hamas's reaction also demonstrates that the terrorist group has not changed. Hamas wants the international community to believe that it is prepared to participate in a new political process. At the same time, however, it continues to defend its weapons, its ideology, and its claim to represent the Palestinian national aspirations.

The contradiction cannot be ignored.

The central question, therefore, is whether Hamas is actually prepared to do what it has been asked to do: disarm and relinquish control of the Gaza Strip.

For years, Hamas has managed to turn every discussion about its weapons into discussions about Israel. This tactic is evident again in its latest statements. Instead of answering the question of disarmament, Hamas accuses Israel of violating the ceasefire. Instead of explaining when and how it will surrender its weapons, Hamas talks about the "rights" of the Palestinian people. Instead of discussing why the Gaza Strip was turned into a launching pad for attacks against Israel. Hamas demands that the Board of Peace focus on Israel.

This response is precisely the problem. Hamas wants the benefits of the new political framework without accepting its most important obligations. Hamas wants reconstruction, international recognition, political influence, and a role in determining Gaza's future. Yet it does not appear prepared to accept the fundamental condition of a peaceful future: that Gaza cannot remain under the control of an armed terrorist organization.

The question that Trump and the Board of Peace should now be asking is easy: When will Hamas surrender its weapons? If Hamas refuses, why is the Board of Peace continuing to negotiate with it as though disarmament were merely another item on a diplomatic agenda?

There should be no ambiguity. A terrorist organization cannot be permitted to retain its weapons while simultaneously claiming to support a peace process. Hamas should also not -- as happened with Iran -- be allowed to use negotiations to buy time, consolidate its power and preserve its military infrastructure.

Hamas's attacks on the Board of Peace should not be viewed as an ordinary diplomatic disagreement. They are a warning that Hamas has no intention of quietly disappearing from Gaza's political or military landscape. The terrorist group is signaling that it will resist any attempt to disarm it, remove it from power or replace its ideology of "resistance" with a program of reconstruction and deradicalization.

By attacking the Board of Peace, Hamas is also attacking its members, including Qatar, Turkey, and Pakistan, countries that apparently still maintain close relations with Hamas. Why are those countries silent? If Qatar, Turkey and Pakistan genuinely support the new Gaza framework, they should tell Hamas that the time has come to stop making excuses and fulfill its commitments.

The October 7, 2023 massacre in Israel should have eliminated any illusion that Hamas can be allowed to remain an armed political force in the Gaza Strip. Yet today, nearly three years after October 7, the international community is still debating how to persuade Hamas to disarm.

The answer is that Hamas should be given a clear choice: surrender its weapons and relinquish control of Gaza, or face the consequences of refusing.

The Board of Peace should not be a platform for Hamas to demand immunity for its commanders, including those involved in the October 7 massacre. The Board of Peace should not be an institution whose sole responsibility is to prevent Israel from pursuing terrorists who continue to threaten its citizens. Hamas appears to believe that the Board of Peace exists to restrain Israel while protecting the terrorist group.

If Hamas's latest attacks are any indication, the terrorist group is already looking for ways to escape the commitments it has purportedly accepted.

Hamas, it seems, does not want to abandon the Board of Peace's peace plan and roadmap. Instead, Hamas wants to redefine them – from a process for disarming Hamas into a process for protecting Hamas.

Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.