Proponents of the proposed deal argue that linking Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of Hamas is the only logical path toward long-term regional stability. By conditioning the removal of troops on the verifiable destruction of militant capabilities, the plan ensures that Israel does not leave a security vacuum that could be exploited by hostile actors. This approach prioritizes the safety of Israeli citizens while providing a clear, performance-based incentive for the cessation of hostilities.
Supporters emphasize that previous attempts at ceasefires have often failed because they did not address the underlying threat posed by Hamas's arsenal. By making disarmament a central pillar of the agreement, the international community can move beyond temporary pauses in fighting and toward a more permanent resolution. This strategy forces a definitive end to the group's ability to launch future attacks, which is seen as a prerequisite for any meaningful reconstruction efforts in Gaza.
Furthermore, this policy shift is viewed as a necessary assertion of American influence to break the current diplomatic stalemate. Advocates suggest that by setting firm expectations, the incoming administration can compel both sides to move past their rigid positions. The focus on disarmament provides a tangible metric for success, allowing for a phased transition that protects Israeli interests while eventually allowing for the restoration of civilian life in the territory.
Ultimately, those backing this plan believe that a partial or premature withdrawal without disarmament would only invite further violence. They argue that the international community must support a framework that guarantees the total neutralization of Hamas as a military force. This, they contend, is the most effective way to ensure that the current cycle of conflict does not repeat itself in the near future.