US and Israel Form Joint Working Groups to Address Gaza Disarmament, but Definitional Disputes Persist
The United States and Israel have established a series of joint working groups aimed at tackling the complex question of disarmament in Gaza, according to reports emerging from ongoing diplomatic discussions, though significant disagreements over the fundamental definition of disarmament continue to cloud the initiative’s prospects.
Senior US officials involved in the negotiations, including figures close to the Trump administration’s Middle East portfolio, have characterised the process as making meaningful headway. The formation of the working groups represents one of the more concrete institutional steps taken so far in what has been a protracted and often fractious effort to define the post-conflict governance and security landscape in Gaza.
Despite the upbeat framing from the US side, the talks are far from straightforward. Officials and observers familiar with the discussions have noted that the two parties do not share a common understanding of what disarmament would actually entail in practice — a divergence that carries substantial implications for any eventual agreement or implementation plan.
Competing Visions Complicate the Path Forward
At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental question: does disarmament mean the full dismantling of Hamas’s military infrastructure, including its command structures and weapons production capabilities, or does it refer to a narrower process of weapons collection and monitoring? Israel has consistently maintained a maximalist position, insisting that any durable solution must eliminate Hamas’s capacity to rearm and reconstitute its forces. The US position, according to reports, may allow for a more phased or partial interpretation, at least in the short term.
These definitional gaps are not merely semantic. They reflect deeper strategic disagreements about the ultimate political and military outcome both sides are prepared to accept in Gaza. For European governments watching closely, the distinction matters enormously, as it will shape whether any ceasefire or post-conflict arrangement can be considered durable enough to support reconstruction efforts and the eventual resumption of humanitarian operations at scale.
The working groups themselves are understood to cover several distinct areas, potentially including weapons verification, security coordination, and the role of third-party actors in any monitoring mechanism. However, the precise mandates and membership of these bodies have not been publicly confirmed, and officials have been cautious about disclosing details that could complicate ongoing negotiations.
European Union representatives have not been formally included in the working group structure, according to available reports, a point of concern for Brussels, which has repeatedly called for a multilateral approach to Gaza’s post-war governance. The EU has significant financial interests in any reconstruction process and has argued that lasting stability will require broader international buy-in beyond the immediate US-Israel bilateral framework.
For now, the establishment of the working groups signals at least a procedural commitment to pushing the disarmament question forward, even if the substantive disagreements remain unresolved. Whether the groups can bridge the definitional divide — or whether they serve primarily as a mechanism to manage diplomatic optics while deeper negotiations continue behind closed doors — remains to be seen. Analysts caution that without clarity on what disarmament actually means, any announced progress risks being more symbolic than substantive.
