Pardon my scepticism, but I do not think Trump’s recent announcement about Hamas’s disarmament is the diplomatic breakthrough that some commentators are claiming.

For a start, there is Trump’s well-known tendency to jump the diplomatic starting line before the starter has entered the stadium. It is a tendency that has scuppered several delicate diplomatic negotiations.

Usually, Trump’s over-egged statements are designed to deflect from his failings elsewhere. Success in Gaza shifts focus away from the Iran War, confirmation hearings and the rising price of petrol. Or he may be trying to push either Hamas or Israel into a deal.

In this respect, it is important to note that neither Qatar nor Egypt—key members of the negotiating team—have said anything about Hamas, disarmament or Trump’s announcement.

Next, there is Hamas’s statement on the issue which is not that different from its previous statements. Yes, we will disarm as stipulated in phase two of the ceasefire agreement, when and if Israel fulfils its obligations under phase one of the agreement.

Those obligations were to withdraw Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) so that they occupied 53 percent of Gaza. Under phase two it would be reduced to 40 percent and phase three would leave the IDF in control of a 15 percent security perimeter which would eventually disappear.

At the  moment, the IDF controls nearly 70 percent of Gaza. It has built defensive bunkers, established communications systems and knocked down buildings to improve firing sight lines. Army engineers do not build permanent fortifications if they are planning to leave in a few weeks.

Phase one also called on Israel to allow the resumption of humanitarian aid to at least pre-war levels. Before the war there were 700-730 trucks laden with humanitarian aid trundling past Israeli-controlled checkpoints into Gaza. Today there are just over 500. This at a time when the need is far greater with hundreds of thousands of displaced persons living in beachfront tents and receiving all their meals from communal kitchens.

Finally, the ceasefire agreement explicitly said that all fighting would stop immediately. Since the agreement was signed 1,168 Palestinians have been killed, according to Gaza health officials. In the same period, according to the IDF, four Israeli soldiers died.

A major reason for scepticism is the silence from the Israeli government which has met Trump’s announcement. There is not total silence. Whispers are leaked out after Netanyahu’s trip to Washington and since then through the Israeli media. They are all discouraging.

The “Times of Israel” reported that an Israeli official at the negotiations in Cairo said that the proposal did not meet Israeli demands. That report has been echoed by other media outlets who have said that the government is opposed to the latest move.

This is mainly because Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition is dependent on the religious parties led by Itmar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. Bev-Gvir is reported to have threatened to leave the coalition if Netanyahu accepts the latest deal. He and Smotrich favour an indefinite occupation of Gaza, including some Israeli settlements. Netanyahu, for his part, is concerned primarily with maintaining a security presence for the foreseeable future, although he refuses to rule out settlements.

A US State Department official said: “We are not asking Israel to do anything other than agree to the 20-point plan they agreed to initially. And so, we are very confident that they will adhere to it.”  The State Department official’s confidence may be misplaced. Israel’s publicly stated position has “evolved” since the ceasefire agreement was signed. It is also noteworthy that the official said that the US was “very confident” rather than certain.

Hamas and Israel are basically in the same position that they have occupied since the agreement was signed, which is – “You First.”

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”