Critics of the proposal argue that accepting such an offer at face value is a dangerous gamble that ignores the history of broken agreements. They contend that Hamas has a long track record of using temporary truces to regroup, rearm, and strengthen its position, rather than pursuing a path toward permanent peace. From this perspective, the offer is likely a strategic deception designed to force an Israeli withdrawal without any real intention of surrendering military power.
There is significant concern that a premature withdrawal of Israeli forces would create a security vacuum that could be exploited by other militant factions. Without a robust, independent, and internationally recognized security force to take over, the risk of renewed violence is high. Skeptics point out that disarmament is not merely about the absence of weapons, but about the total dismantling of the command structures and infrastructure that support militant operations.
Furthermore, the lack of a clear, transparent verification mechanism makes the proposal inherently unreliable. Without the ability to independently confirm that the group has truly disarmed, Israel would be left vulnerable to future attacks while having lost its primary means of defense. This view holds that the security of Israeli citizens cannot be traded for unverified promises that lack the backing of a comprehensive and enforceable peace treaty.
Ultimately, those who warn against this path believe that the focus should remain on maintaining security until a credible, alternative governing authority is established. They argue that rushing into a deal based on a public statement could undermine years of effort to contain the threat. For these critics, the priority must be the long-term safety of the region, which they believe cannot be guaranteed by an organization that has not demonstrated a fundamental change in its core objectives.