The Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas has declared that any political process regarding the future of Gaza must begin with a complete halt to what it described as Israeli “aggression.” The statement comes amid renewed international attention on Gaza’s future governance and reconstruction, following a meeting of U.S. President Donald Trump’s newly formed Board of Peace.

The development underscores the deep divisions that remain between Hamas and Israel over the path forward for the Gaza Strip. While Hamas insists that discussions must start with a full ceasefire and the lifting of the blockade, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that Hamas must disarm before any reconstruction efforts can begin.

The competing demands reflect the broader and long-running conflict between Israel and Hamas, which has led to repeated cycles of violence and significant humanitarian consequences for civilians in Gaza.

Hamas Sets Conditions for Talks

In a statement released on Thursday, February 19, 2026, Hamas made its position clear. The group said that any arrangement concerning Gaza and the future of the Palestinian people must start with three key elements: a total halt to Israeli military operations, the lifting of the blockade on Gaza, and guarantees of what it described as the Palestinian people’s legitimate national rights.

According to Hamas, these rights include the right to freedom and self-determination. The group emphasized that political discussions cannot move forward while military operations continue and restrictions on Gaza remain in place.

Hamas’ statement comes at a time when diplomatic efforts are intensifying. International actors are increasingly discussing plans for rebuilding Gaza, which has suffered widespread destruction due to repeated rounds of fighting.

However, Hamas has made it clear that reconstruction alone is not enough. The group argues that without addressing what it sees as the root political issues, including occupation and restrictions on movement, any reconstruction plan will be incomplete.

Israel’s Position: Disarmament First

On the other side, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has taken a firm stance. He has insisted that Hamas must disarm before reconstruction or political arrangements can proceed.

From Israel’s perspective, Hamas is not merely a political actor but an armed group responsible for attacks against Israeli civilians. Israeli officials argue that allowing reconstruction without disarmament would enable Hamas to rebuild its military capabilities.

Netanyahu’s position reflects longstanding Israeli policy that security concerns must come first. Israeli leaders have repeatedly stated that they cannot accept a scenario in which Hamas retains weapons and control while international funds are used to rebuild infrastructure that could later be used for military purposes.

This fundamental disagreement over sequencing — whether ceasefire and political rights come first, or disarmament comes first — lies at the heart of the current impasse.

The Role of the United States

The latest statements came shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump convened the first meeting of his Board of Peace, a body reportedly created to explore pathways to stability in conflict regions, including Gaza.

Although details of the meeting have not been fully disclosed, its timing has drawn attention. The United States has historically played a major role in Middle East diplomacy, including brokering ceasefires and facilitating negotiations between Israel and Palestinian representatives.

The formation of a Board of Peace suggests renewed American interest in shaping post-conflict arrangements in Gaza. However, the success of any such initiative depends heavily on whether the core parties — Israel and Hamas — are willing to compromise.

The U.S. traditionally maintains strong ties with Israel while also engaging with Palestinian representatives through various diplomatic channels. Balancing these relationships has often proved challenging.

Gaza’s Humanitarian Crisis

The debate over political arrangements takes place against the backdrop of a severe humanitarian situation in Gaza. The territory has faced years of blockade, periodic conflict, and economic hardship.

Large parts of Gaza’s infrastructure, including housing, roads, hospitals, and schools, have been damaged or destroyed in recent rounds of fighting. Thousands of families have been displaced. Access to basic services such as electricity, clean water, and healthcare remains limited.

International organizations have repeatedly called for sustained ceasefires to allow humanitarian aid to reach civilians. Reconstruction efforts have often been delayed by political disagreements and security concerns.

Hamas argues that lifting the blockade is essential for rebuilding normal life in Gaza. Israel, however, contends that restrictions are necessary to prevent weapons from entering the territory.

The Question of Governance

Another key issue is who will govern Gaza in the future. Hamas has controlled Gaza since 2007, following its victory in Palestinian legislative elections and a subsequent split with the rival Fatah movement.

Over the years, various proposals have emerged, including the possibility of a technocratic administration, international oversight, or a return of the Palestinian Authority to governance in Gaza. None of these options have yet materialized in a lasting way.

Hamas’ latest statement suggests that it does not intend to step aside easily without political guarantees. Meanwhile, Israel has indicated that it does not want Hamas to retain governing authority.

This creates a complicated scenario where both sides have firm conditions that are difficult to reconcile.

International Reactions

The international community is closely watching developments. Regional players such as Egypt and Qatar have previously mediated ceasefires between Israel and Hamas. The European Union and the United Nations have also called for sustainable solutions.

Many countries support a two-state solution as the long-term framework for peace. However, progress toward that goal has stalled for years.

The renewed diplomatic focus may create an opportunity for dialogue, but the road ahead remains uncertain. Deep mistrust between the parties continues to hinder meaningful progress.

Public Sentiment

Among Palestinians in Gaza, there is widespread frustration with ongoing instability and economic hardship. Many residents prioritize immediate needs such as housing, employment, and healthcare.

At the same time, political identity and resistance narratives remain strong. Hamas positions itself as defending Palestinian rights and resisting Israeli policies.

In Israel, public opinion is heavily influenced by security concerns. Many Israelis support firm measures against Hamas, especially after episodes of violence. The demand for disarmament reflects these security priorities.

Challenges Ahead

The key challenge lies in bridging the gap between security and political demands. Hamas seeks recognition of Palestinian national rights and relief from restrictions. Israel seeks guarantees that Hamas will no longer pose a military threat.

Diplomatic efforts often attempt to find phased approaches. For example, a temporary ceasefire could be followed by confidence-building measures, leading eventually to broader political talks. However, past attempts have struggled to gain lasting traction.

The involvement of the United States and other international actors may provide momentum. But any agreement will require compromise from both sides.

Broader Regional Implications

The Gaza issue has implications beyond the immediate conflict zone. It affects relations between Israel and neighboring Arab countries, as well as broader Middle East stability.

Recent years have seen shifts in regional alliances, with some Arab states normalizing relations with Israel. However, the Palestinian issue remains a central concern in the region.

Escalations in Gaza often trigger protests and political pressure in neighboring countries. Conversely, progress toward peace could contribute to regional stability.

Conclusion

Hamas’ demand that discussions on Gaza’s future begin with a halt to Israeli aggression reflects the group’s core political stance. Israel’s insistence on disarmament before reconstruction highlights its security-focused approach.

The path forward is complicated by deep mistrust, competing narratives, and the heavy toll of years of conflict. While diplomatic initiatives such as President Trump’s Board of Peace may create new openings, the fundamental disagreements remain unresolved.

For Gaza’s residents, the stakes are high. The future of the territory depends not only on reconstruction funds but also on political decisions that address both security concerns and aspirations for national rights.

As talks continue and international actors engage, the coming weeks and months will determine whether a new chapter can begin — or whether the cycle of conflict will persist.

Join our Telegram Channel for Latest News and Regular Updates.

Start your Mutual Fund Journey  by Opening Free Account in Asset Plus.

Start your Stock Market Journey and Apply in IPO by Opening Free Demat Account in Choice Broking FinX.