U.S. lawmakers expressed deep skepticism on Tuesday over the international Board of Peace’s newly announced Hamas disarmament framework, pointing to violations already taking place in Gaza and a lack of indications that Hamas is serious about honoring a deal as evidence that the ambitious peace proposal faces near-insurmountable hurdles.

The pushback comes less than a week after President Donald Trump announced that the Board of Peace had brokered an agreement calling for the “complete disarmament of Hamas and all other armed groups” in the enclave, at which point the IDF is expected to completely withdraw. 

However, the agreement hit immediate turbulence over the weekend. Despite the plan calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities, the Israel Defense Forces carried out multiple strikes across Gaza. On Monday, Board of Peace High Representative Nickolay Mladenov held a “constructive and detailed” meeting in Jerusalem with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, requesting a full pause in military operations to allow disarmament efforts to begin. 

Netanyahu said in a video statement on Tuesday that the U.S. “sent us a draft” of the agreement, but “we didn’t agree. It wasn’t our draft. We sent our responses.” He vowed that Israeli troops would not pull back from their current lines in Gaza until disarmament was complete.

Against the backdrop of  hostilities and diplomatic friction, members of Congress across the aisle voiced serious doubts on Tuesday about the viability of the deal.

“There will be no real peace for Gaza or Israel as long as Hamas has weapons and is allowed to ruthlessly rule over innocent Palestinians,” Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) told Jewish Insider. “I’m cautiously encouraged by this plan, but let’s not kid ourselves — Hamas has a long record of lying, and they’ve broken their word before, over and over. I’ll be watching every step of this until Hamas is fully disarmed.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) was succinct in his assessment, noting that “it’s not really yet what I would call a deal,” given the resistance it has already faced.

Republicans also expressed skepticism that Hamas would live up to its end of the agreement. 

“I suspect that while this may have good intentions to it, I’ll believe it when I actually see it happening,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) told JI. 

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), meanwhile, pointed the finger at international bodies and critics of Israel, arguing that enforcing Hamas’ disarmament will require real forces on the ground rather than unhelpful rhetoric from foreign observers.

“This plan will work, but first you’ve got to take their weapons, and they’re not going to just give up their weapons,” Kennedy said. “They’re going to say ‘Israel has to withdraw first, and then we’ll give up our weapons,’ and they won’t give up their weapons … My question is, where are all these other backseat drivers that have been criticizing Israel? Where are they? This is their chance for peace.”

“Other people in the world, including but not limited to the United Nations, who are preaching in Israel and in America about how we screwed up Gaza, they need to get off their ice-cold lazy butts and send some of their troops, along with Israeli troops, to disarm Hamas,” Kennedy added. “And they won’t do it. They just want to sit there and criticize us and the president.”

President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that the Board of Peace had reached a “historic” agreement for the “complete disarmament” of Hamas and all other armed groups in Gaza, calling it a “monumental step toward lasting PEACE and SECURITY.”

Trump said in a post on Truth Social that the agreement would be “carried out carefully in structured phases,” and that the IDF would withdraw when Hamas’ disarmament is “completed.” 

The president said that moving forward, “the International Stabilization Force will work with a new Palestinian police force to take responsibility for Gaza being safe for its residents and neighbors.” He emphasized that the transition represents a critical step toward establishing a government that works for Palestinians while not posing a threat to Israeli security.

“The threat that emerged from Gaza on October 7 will NOT be allowed to rebuild!” Trump wrote. “Under this agreement, Gaza will finally be in the hands of a new Palestinian government that serves its PEOPLE.” 

Trump said the ultimate goal is for the Palestinian government, ostensibly a reference to the technocratic government established under the Board of Peace, to “work closely” with the board and oversee a Gaza “no longer used as a base for terror attacks.” 

He also thanked Turkey, Qatar and Egypt for their role as mediators whose “important efforts” made “this historic breakthrough possible.”

Following the announcement, a senior U.S. official said in a call with reporters on Thursday evening that the document is “an agreement by Hamas to follow through on the decommissioning” of its weapons as well as its terror tunnels. The official noted that Iran tried to “convince [Hamas] not to do this deal,” but in the end, “the final communication came through the mediators that Hamas has agreed.”

“There were a lot of concerns that [Hamas] had about what would happen to them — would Israel honor its commitments if they did that? — it’s been a very delicate negotiation and discussion with them over the past months that have led us to this breakthrough where we have an understanding of what needs to be done,” the U.S. official said. “We’ll hopefully work over the next weeks to start putting it in motion.”

Text of the deal released on Friday by the Board of Peace indicates the process will be carried out over three years, and requires that Israel immediately end all military operations in the Gaza Strip, to eventually withdraw completely from the enclave. 

Hamas must relinquish its heavy weapons, military production sites, depots of weapons and terror tunnels in a process linked to the IDF’s phased withdrawal, and personal weapons will be “subject to the regulations of relevant Palestinian laws.” At the end of the process, “only [the new technocratic government] shall hold, store or control weapons in Gaza,” the agreement reads.

Ghazi Hamad, a senior Hamas figure, told Al Jazeera, “We will not take any action regarding disarmament prior to Israel’s withdrawal from the Strip.” 

Meanwhile, Reuters cited an Israeli official as having said, prior to Trump’s announcement, “Israel demands the complete disarmament of Hamas, including the removal of weapons from Gaza and the complete demilitarization of the Strip as a precondition for any process.” 

A Board of Peace official told reporters that the plan includes U.N. Security Council Resolution 2803, in which the U.N. endorsed Trump’s Gaza peace plan, stating that “for the first time, effectively, Hamas and the Palestinian factions have agreed to accept this entire framework and have agreed on a way to implement it.”

They noted that the framework includes “everything from demilitarization and de-radicalization to the transfer of civilian authority in Gaza to the transfer of security authority in Gaza as well to the national committees,” along with “a full monopoly on weapons.”

The Board of Peace official said that the board will implement a “verification committee” in order to ensure the plan’s objectives are being met. They noted that weapons will be transferred to the technocratic government. 

Officials added that the ISF has secured commitments for over 5,000 troops from various nations. The force will help train Palestinian police, oversee the decommissioning of weapons and act as a buffer between Israeli and Palestinian forces during the IDF withdrawal. Meanwhile, a newly trained Palestinian police force will handle internal security, taking over from Hamas.

Asked whether the board would seek the involvement of the Palestinian Authority, the official said that “for the time being, we’re trying to just do something new.”

“They [the PA] have to show that they can run the West Bank and do reforms,” the official said. “If the PA shows that they do a good job … then obviously the discussion could be open.” 

The official said that despite “a lot of criticism, particularly in Israel,” about the involvement of Turkey and Qatar in the Board of Peace, they noted that the two Arab nations, along with Egypt, have been “essential partners … in getting to this stage.”

The Board of Peace official said that the negotiations were “very complicated,” given that the two sides “do not trust each other.” 

“From Day One, we heard the same thing both from Hamas and Israel, that they absolutely do not trust each other,” the official said. “So we built this entire proposal that we took to them on the basis of zero trust … everything that is in it is conditional, and it needs to be verified. No side is being asked to do something without that being confirmed and by reciprocity from the other side.”

“The first step is getting a framework, getting the de-escalation, getting the humanitarian issues resolved, having a plan forward … and so we’re going to do it as quickly as we can,” the official added. “But it can get slower, and hopefully both sides will cooperate in an appropriate way. And if they don’t, we’ll deal with it accordingly, like we have the last months.”

A senior U.S. official told reporters, “We’re not asking Israel to do anything that isn’t in the 20-point plan that they agreed to initially, and so we’re very confident they will adhere to it. If they don’t, President Trump would be very, very disappointed.”

American and Israeli officials expressed skepticism on Monday that Hamas would follow through with its pledge to dissolve its governing body that has ruled Gaza for over two decades.

Hamas announced the dissolution of the “Emergency Committee,” the terrorist organization’s governing body, and the resignation of Mohammed al-Farra as the committee’s chief on Monday. The terrorist group said that it was prepared to transfer authority to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), the technocratic committee established under President Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan and overseen by the Trump administration’s Board of Peace. 

The announcement did not address whether the terrorist group would disarm, a key facet of the Gaza peace plan. Hamas’ announcement came after the Board of Peace convened a series of meetings last week to advance plans for the NCAG to take over the governance of Gaza.

The Board of Peace said that it was withholding judgment on the announcement, instead vowing to assess Hamas’ “actions, not promises, to meet the critical needs of the people of Gaza.”

“Decisions must be comprehensive with respect to the requirements as set out in the Roadmap for advancing governance, security, and transition in Gaza,” the board said in a statement. “We look forward to the successful conclusion of discussions on this Roadmap, including on the implementation mechanisms necessary to enable the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza to assume full governing authority.”

The board’s statement also noted that the “core principle” of the ongoing peace efforts in Gaza “remains one authority, one law and one weapon,” and reiterated its position that Hamas must disarm. “A genuine transfer of authority must enable the NCAG to exercise its mandate independently, including taking the administrative and governance decisions entrusted to it.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar dismissed the move outright, saying that Hamas had agreed to give up governing control of the Gaza Strip in a largely symbolic overture while sidestepping disarmament calls. 

“Hamas’s trick is simple. Hamas’s apparent willingness to ‘make room’ for a technocratic government is designed to prevent its own disarmament,” Sa’ar wrote on X. “Hamas seeks to replicate the ‘Hezbollah model’ in Gaza: a technocratic administration would be responsible for garbage collection and other municipal services, while Hamas would remain the dominant military force.”

“As long as Hamas retains its weapons, any civilian government will of course operate as Hamas dictates,” he continued. “This would allow Hamas to continue oppressing the Palestinian people in Gaza, while pursuing its jihadist war against Israel.”

Sa’ar went on to note that Israel “insists on the full implementation of the Trump plan, with its core principles being the disarmament of Hamas and all other terrorist organizations, and the complete demilitarization of the Gaza Strip.”

Elliott Abrams, who served as Iran envoy under the first Trump administration, similarly expressed doubt about the prospect of Hamas giving up its weapons and influence in Gaza. 

“In my view, this is Hamas trying to become Hezbollah,” Abrams told Jewish Insider. “Hamas used to run everything, up to and including garbage collection. They were the government of Gaza. Hezbollah uses a different mode: there is a Lebanese government providing public services, so Hezbollah can just concentrate on being an army and a terrorist group.”

“This offer by Hamas does not suggest that they will disarm, and as Board of Peace chairman [Nickolay] Mladenov has said, without Hamas disarmament there will be zero progress,” he continued. 

Steven Cook, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that he believes Hamas is seeking to retain power and authority in Gaza without having to govern or be held accountable for the new government’s potential shortcomings. 

“[Hamas] will cede governing to technocrats who represent no one but will retain its arms to ensure that Hamas remains the center of power and authority in Gaza,” Cook said. 

Analysts argued that unless Hamas disarms, the group will remain in power and progress on the president’s Gaza plan will remain stalled. Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, called the announcement from Hamas “fairly meaningless” without disarmament. 

“Hamas can proclaim it’s ceding administrative authority to technocrats, but it will retain de facto power in its slice of Gaza as long as it still has a monopoly on violence there,” Ruhe said. “Until and unless Hamas actually disarms, voluntarily or otherwise, anything else the group says or does is fairly meaningless in terms of the peace plan’s vision for stabilization, reconstruction, and new governance in Gaza.”

Ruhe also suggested that Hamas made the announcement in an effort to shift the pressure toward Israel without fulfilling its own commitments. 

“The group’s official line is telling. Hamas cynically frames this step as removing the pretext for Israel’s ‘occupation’ of Gaza, even though it knows full well that demilitarization is a two-sided commitment, not a unilateral obligation on Israel,” Ruhe said. “This shows how Hamas wants to cherry pick parts of the Gaza peace plan, in order to put pressure on Israel, but without fulfilling its own commitments to disarm under that same plan.”

Neomi Neumann, an adjunct fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, similarly argued that Hamas is seeking to put the “blame game into an Israel area.”

“I think their [Hamas] message is: ‘We have given up the government in Gaza, and now Israel is on the side of preventing the progress,’” Neumann said. “For Hamas, they understand that if they will stay with the same position. [At]  the end of the day, Mladenov will declare [Hamas] as a rejectionist organization, so as a result I think that Hamas is trying to frame the move … in order to survive.” 

Neumann expressed skepticism that Hamas would give up its weapons in addition to governance in Gaza, adding that there is a “very low” chance that Hamas changes its mind. However, she said, “you can never say never.”

“We also thought that [Hamas] will never bring back the hostages,” Neumann said. “I think that if the United States and Turkey and Qatar will push Hamas very hard and put pressure on Hamas, they will say they are willing to give up the heavy weapons, but they won’t find it easy to say they are willing to give up their guns because everybody can kill them and in the end of the day they know they need to continue to control the Gaza Strip with weapons.” 

Still, she noted that the situation remains a “disaster” from the Israeli perspective.

“From Israel’s point of view, I think it will be a disaster, because they [Hamas] just will get stronger.” Neumann said. “Iran will continue now to give much more money to Hamas. They [Hamas] won’t let any other power to emerge and to get strong, and it will be very complicated.”

As Hamas reportedly continues to reject the U.S.-led Board of Peace’s disarmament framework and fails to comply with key demilitarization deadlines, the future of the fragile Gaza peace process remains uncertain.

Disarming Hamas is a central pillar of President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace initiative, which secured the release of the remaining Israeli hostages and included a partial Israeli military withdrawal from eastern Gaza. Its second phase has hinged on Hamas laying down its arms — a step that is expected to pave the way for further IDF withdrawal from the enclave and a transition to governance by the 15-member National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, led by Ali Shaath and operating under the Board of Peace.

Last month, Nickolay Mladenov, the Board of Peace’s high representative for Gaza, presented a framework for demilitarization and set a deadline for the end of last week for Hamas to disarm. Reports indicate the group rejected the proposal, accusing Mladenov of bias toward Israel and blaming Jerusalem for not completely fulfilling its obligations under the first phase of the plan. 

U.S. and Hamas negotiators held the first direct talks between the parties since the announcement of the Gaza ceasefire in October 2025 on Tuesday night, CNN reported. Senior U.S. advisor Aryeh Lightstone and Mladenov met with Khalil al-Hayaa, a chief Hamas negotiator, in Cairo, where Mladenov communicated that Hamas must accept the terms of the demilitarization agreement “or face a return to war.” 

Former White House officials are split over the path forward and whether the Trump administration should escalate pressure on Hamas or stay the course.

Dan Shapiro, who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel under President Barack Obama and was appointed by then-President Joe Biden in 2021 to serve as special liaison to Israel on Iran, said Hamas is unlikely to disarm voluntarily, arguing the group would only do so “under duress.” One potential avenue, he said, would be renewed Israeli military action, though he emphasized that such a move would be both costly and unlikely.

“[Israeli military action] would come at an enormous price in civilian casualties, given Hamas’ embedded position within Gaza’s population,” Shapiro said, adding that it is “highly unlikely the Trump administration would lend its support to such an operation” and that it would deal “further blows to Israel’s international support.”

Instead, Shapiro pointed to regional pressure as a more viable path, particularly from Qatar and Turkey, which he said have previously used their leverage to influence Hamas.

“The other source of pressure on Hamas would be the threat of Qatar and Turkey to withdraw their political, financial and hosting support of the organization,” Shapiro said. “They were the parties who used their unique leverage with Hamas after the Israeli strike in Doha to convince Hamas to release all hostages. Trump should engage their leaders, as he did in that period, to convince them to use their leverage again, this time to pressure Hamas to disarm.”

However, Shapiro cautioned that the war in Iran has diverted U.S. attention and “may have reduced Trump’s ability to influence key regional leaders, like [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan and the emir of Qatar, to take this necessary action on Hamas disarmament.”

Elliott Abrams, a former Iran envoy under the first Trump administration, similarly noted that Hamas “hasn’t changed its spots.” He said that Hamas leaders “obviously think a disarmed Hamas is a dying Hamas; without ‘armed struggle’ they believe they will disappear and become just another political party.”

“What Mladenov and the U.S. government need to figure out is what happens to the Board of Peace and to U.S. policy if Hamas won’t disarm,” Abrams said. “I think the answer is to prevent any arms and money from being smuggled into the half of Gaza that Hamas still controls, and to develop the half of Gaza under Israeli control.”

“No one seems to want to invade and conquer western Gaza, including the IDF,” Abrams added. “Perhaps over time, Gazans will begin migrating to the parts of Gaza where life can be lived without Hamas.”

Meanwhile, Alexander Gray, former chief of staff to the National Security Council during Trump’s first term, offered a more supportive view of the administration’s current strategy, calling it “realistic.”

“While we must continue to work with Israel to ensure Hamas is unable to wage war against our partners and allies and terrorize the region, we must also be realistic about the nature of the organization and its leadership,” Gray said. “The administration’s vision for a prosperous Gaza and secure Israel must continue apace, while appropriate and realistic steps are taken to prevent Hamas from acting true to its charter and perpetrating further death and destruction.”

The first round of direct talks between Israel and Lebanon has been received positively by diplomats, pro-Israel lawmakers and experts, who see it as a sign of Hezbollah’s waning influence in Lebanon. But despite the optimism surrounding the discussions, experts caution that disarming the terrorist group remains a daunting obstacle that stands in the way of any meaningful change — one that would require a significant shift from the Lebanese government and its armed forces.

On Tuesday, Israeli and Lebanese leadership convened at the State Department in Washington for the highest-level direct discussions in more than 30 years, aiming to outline a framework for “lasting peace” and a “permanent end” to Hezbollah’s influence, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.  

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) told Jewish Insider that “it is great” that talks are taking place, expressing hope that “the Lebanese government, the United States and the Israeli government make a deal, and collectively, they push Hezbollah out.”

“That way the Lebanese people can be freed from the Iranian extremism that they have in their country,” Moskowitz said. “The Lebanese people are being held captive by the Iranian government because of Hezbollah. It’s obviously good for the United States, it’s good for Israel, but more importantly, I think it’s good for the people of Lebanon. I think disarming Hezbollah is obviously key to all this.”

Moskowitz added that while the Lebanese government appears to want to disarm Hezbollah, “they probably need help.”

“It’s not going to happen overnight, but I think it’s historic, and this is what the entire region wants,” he said. “This is what the Gulf states want. Everybody wants to come out of the extremism and the terrorism that Iran is trying to spread in the region.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) similarly told JI that Hezbollah disarmament is an important factor in talks. 

“Why would you have talks if they [Hezbollah] are not going to disarm?” Scott said. “I’m not the prime minister of Israel but my condition would be that Hezbollah has got to disarm.”

Scott dismissed the notion that the Lebanese government and the Lebanese Armed Forces have not done enough to disarm the group, stating that the main problem is “not caused by Lebanon or by the military of Lebanon, it’s caused by Hezbollah.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said that disarming Hezbollah should be a “red line” for Israel in talks. He added that Israel “needs a buffer zone so Hezbollah can’t continue to rain down terror on Israelis.”

“Hezbollah has historically been the best trained, best equipped opponents to Israel,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) said. “Israel’s done a great job with them over the last two years, but they’re hardcore fervent believers in destroying Israel.” 

Experts similarly described the talks as a meaningful development. John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, called the discussions an “important breakthrough” and a sign of Hezbollah’s diminishing influence.

“Everyone should welcome the opening of a direct political dialogue between Israel and Lebanon,” Hannah said. “The fact that [the talks are] occurring at all is an important sign of Hezbollah’s declining hegemony over the Lebanese state.”

Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, described the talks as a “win-win-win” in a social media post, adding that Hezbollah emerged as a “big loser.”

“Today is a day to celebrate — we all saw a glimpse of what is possible after so much violence and conflict,” Satloff wrote on Tuesday. “That is a very good thing.”

Still, experts say disarming Hezbollah, which parties agree is necessary for any lasting piece, remains highly difficult and uncertain.

Even before Tuesday’s opening round of discussions, Hezbollah senior member Wafiq Safa said Hezbollah is “not bound” by any deals reached between Israel, Lebanon and the United States.

“It’s hard to be an optimist when it comes to the core question of Hezbollah’s disarmament,” Hannah said. “Even after all that’s been done over the past few years to weaken the group and its Iranian sponsors — including the loss of its legitimacy in the eyes of a majority of Lebanese — it’s not at all apparent that the raw balance of forces inside Lebanon has shifted sufficiently to favor Hezbollah’s near-term demise.”

Hannah described disarming Hezbollah as “worth trying,” but ultimately a “long shot.”

“Since the war against Iran broke out on Feb. 28, Hezbollah has shown through its sustained attacks on Israel that, while much diminished, its forces retain far more significant capabilities than many believed,” he said. “And in the wake of its battle against Israel, Hezbollah is making clear that if push comes to shove, it’s prepared to burn down the state before surrendering its weapons.”

Blaise Misztal, JINSA’s vice president for policy, said the task cannot be accomplished through Israeli military action alone and will ultimately depend on whether Lebanon and the LAF are willing to act.

“[Disarming Hezbollah] can only be fully done by a strong and committed Lebanese government,” Misztal said. “Israel can secure southern Lebanon with ground operations and strike Hezbollah sites in Beirut or the Bekaa Valley, but that will merely distance and degrade the threat, never fully remove it.”

“The question is whether the Lebanese government is, or can be convinced to be, strong and committed enough to take on the task of asserting its control over its own territory,” he added. “Thus far, it has failed to demonstrate either the political will or military capability to do so.”

Hannah similarly noted that “Israel is rightly unwilling to pay the necessary cost in blood, treasure and diplomatic opprobrium” required to fully dismantle Hezbollah, leaving the responsibility to Lebanon and its armed forces.

“The factor that has truly held Lebanon back from disarming Hezbollah has been Hezbollah’s retention of, as far as we can tell, overwhelming support among Lebanese Shiites,” David Daoud, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said. “Having retained that popular support, it can deter the government from pursuing forcible disarmament by dangling the threat of civil war.”

But experts weren’t optimistic that the Lebanese government and LAF are capable — or willing — to take on that role. Hannah said Lebanon’s military “doesn’t appear to have the stomach to truly confront Hezbollah and dismantle the group’s armed wing,” noting that it has already “failed” to disarm the group in southern Lebanon, “much less the rest of the country.”

“It seems even less likely than before the Iran war that the LAF would now be willing to take on the risk of massively confronting Hezbollah,” he said, “in spite of the misery Hezbollah’s unilateral decision to enter the conflict on Iran’s behalf is now inflicting on the rest of Lebanon.”

David Daoud, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, also said Beirut “ultimately holds the key” to resolving the issue of Hezbollah’s disarmament. He said that while Lebanon has taken “immense and commendable” steps in “proscribing Hezbollah’s military activities,” the country’s “unwillingness to act against Hezbollah has been missing from the equation” and has “allowed the group to regenerate in the past.”

He added that Hezbollah still “retains enough military strength to make disarmament daunting” for Lebanese forces and the LAF, and that the group continues to wield significant political power.

“The factor that has truly held Lebanon back from disarming Hezbollah has been Hezbollah’s retention of, as far as we can tell, overwhelming support among Lebanese Shiites,” Daoud said. “Having retained that popular support, it can deter the government from pursuing forcible disarmament by dangling the threat of civil war.”

Daoud also raised concerns about Lebanon’s intentions in negotiations, arguing that Beirut may not truly be seeking meaningful change.

“A good test will be the extent to which the LAF fulfills the Lebanese government’s order from early April to put all of Beirut under its full control,” John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, said. “Will the LAF truly confront and disarm Hezbollah in the capital or simply repeat the phony disarmament it claimed to have completed in the south?”

“Lebanon is seeking to use the negotiations to return to the status quo, and is willing to ‘pay the price’ of a joint photograph with an Israeli ambassador to achieve that objective,” he said. “This is because the situation in Lebanon is indeed dire — economic collapse compounded by war, the direct impact of the war itself and the emergence of sectarian tensions that could boil over into full-on conflict.”

If those dynamics remain unchanged, he warned that Hezbollah could indefinitely delay disarmament and eventually rebuild its strength.

“A good test will be the extent to which the LAF fulfills the Lebanese government’s order from early April to put all of Beirut under its full control,” Hannah said. “Will the LAF truly confront and disarm Hezbollah in the capital or simply repeat the phony disarmament it claimed to have completed in the south?”

Satloff said the challenge will ultimately require translating diplomacy into “practical steps,” including a shift in how the Lebanese military approaches disarmament.

“While some of this can happen in the negotiating room when the parties meet again, nothing can substitute for strong measures by the Lebanese state to isolate, weaken, delegitimize and disarm Hezbollah while promoting the idea of peace,” he said.

He suggested that turning Beirut into a “true weapons-free zone” is necessary “but not sufficient,” pointing to additional steps such as removing Hezbollah officials from government, expelling Iranian operatives from the country and shutting down the group’s financial and institutional networks.

Lawmakers and expert witnesses at a House Foreign Affairs Committee subcommittee hearing on Tuesday highlighted the ongoing challenges and delays in the disarming of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, but also argued that there is tremendous opportunity in the country if Hezbollah’s influence can be defeated — including potential moves in the near term toward normalization with Israel.

“Right now, we have the chance to help this government break free of the shackles of Iran’s malign influence. Hezbollah’s influence is vastly diminished thanks in large part to decisive Israeli action. But difficult choices now need to be made to permanently block Hezbollah’s path to power,” Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), the Middle East subcommittee chair, said in his opening statement.

He said that the Lebanese Armed Forces have made strides in disarming Hezbollah but the ceasefire plan’s implementation “has been haphazard at best,” also emphasizing the ongoing economic difficulties and widespread corruption that continue to plague the country and provide Hezbollah and its Iranian backers opportunities to rebuild.

Lawler also emphasized that significant reforms are needed, particularly in southern Lebanon, to ensure that the same corrupt systems that allowed Hezbollah to flourish do not return. In the long term, Lawler said that he hopes to see Lebanon become a “true partner” in the region and normalize its relationship with Israel.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), the ranking member, said that there is a “historic opportunity” in Lebanon but “[t]hat window of opportunity, however, is narrow. Hezbollah is working hard to rebuild, rearm and to reconstitute itself as a major terrorist organization.”

Sherman accused the Trump administration of a “lack of urgency and a lack of the necessary support” to groups working to counter Hezbollah in the country, particularly following cuts to foreign assistance.

He said that comments by the Trump administration “have often sent the wrong signals, particularly when Special Envoy Tom Barrack downplayed Hezbollah and described it as a political party that also has a — let me quote him exactly — ‘a political party that also has a militant aspect to it,’” Sherman continued.

During the hearing, expert witnesses, all from The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, warned that the disarmament process is not proceeding smoothly or entirely as expected. All three agreed that the U.S. should condition security assistance to Lebanon on progress in disarming Hezbollah, among other steps. And they each said the U.S. should ramp up its sanctions efforts, targeting Hezbollah and malign actors in the Lebanese government.

David Schenker, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute and former Trump administration official, emphasized that the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) are encountering ongoing obstacles including Hezbollah’s use of human shields, a lack of political will, ongoing Hezbollah penetration of the LAF, ongoing LAF deference to Hezbollah and threats to LAF forces’ safety.

He said the Lebanese government has not deployed as many troops to southern Lebanon to carry out the disarmament mission as it had promised.

Hanin Ghaddar, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute and longtime Lebanese journalist, said that the lack of a concrete timeline for disarmament “has produced a de facto freeze,” in which neither the LAF nor Hezbollah are moving forward. She called for outside pressure, including conditions on U.S. aid, to pressure the LAF into continuing with its obligations to disarm Hezbollah.

Dana Stroul, the research director at The Washington Institute and a former Biden administration official, said that defanging Hezbollah requires not only disarming the group but also “addressing the political, social and economic system within which Hezbollah has thrived.” She called for expanded U.S. engagement in the country outside of the security realm.

Stroul, differing from the other witnesses, argued that the U.S. should offer reconstruction assistance — in addition to military aid — to offset the unconditional aid flowing in from Qatar and Turkey and ensure oversight and safeguards. She said that waiting to contribute to reconstruction efforts until after disarmament is complete risks locking the U.S. out of the process and preventing it from enforcing its own conditions.

Schenker argued that the current “division of labor” between the LAF and Israel, which maintains positions inside Lebanon and continues to carry out strikes on Hezbollah outposts, should continue pending further LAF progress. He said that many in the LAF are quietly “very pleased” about the Israeli action, in contrast with their public protests.

In spite of the ongoing issues, the witnesses said that the new Lebanese government is an improvement over previous ones and that there are people within the Lebanese government with whom the U.S. can work and who are making real strides. The witnesses noted that other regional and global developments are also depriving Hezbollah of its key allies.

Schenker and Ghaddar said that, if the Iranian regime were to fall, Hezbollah would be significantly weakened, though Schenker warned that it would not fully disappear due to its various money-generating ventures inside Lebanon and foreign supporters.

The witnesses said that Lebanese normalization with Israel could be achievable.

“Peace between Lebanon and Israel is not separate from this effort, it is what sustains it,” Ghaddar said, adding that such an outcome is “closer than many may assume” but only with a forceful U.S. policy approach. She said that “peace is no longer taboo” and that the “Lebanese street is ready” for such a step. She said that the peace process should begin immediately.

“Peace raises the political cost of re-armament, strengthens state legitimacy, unlocks economic recovery and deprives Hezbollah of its core justification. Without a credible peace horizon, disarmament and economic reform will be temporary,” Ghaddar continued. “With one, they become structural.”

She said that the U.S. should focus on eroding the Lebanese anti-normalization law by offering incentives to not enforce the law, and sanctioning those involved in its enforcement. She also called for continued discussions on economic cooperation between Lebanon and Israel.

Stroul similarly said that a Lebanese government publicly considering normalization with Israel is “not any policy opportunity that, before Oct. 7, we could have imagined,” providing a “tremendous reason for hope,” alongside other improvements in the leadership in Beirut.

Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) raised concerns about the role of the Muslim Brotherhood, backed by Turkey and Qatar, in Lebanon.

Schenker said that the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated party in Lebanon has been “making slow but steady progress.” Ghaddar said that Turkey and Qatar “play a very bad role in Lebanon in terms of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood” and that the Muslim Brotherhood branch, which she described as “Lebanese Hamas,” is a “very dangerous phenomenon.”

Ghaddar added that the Muslim Brotherhood has been treating Hezbollah as a “strategic ally” and that they might form an alliance in the upcoming elections.

Lawmakers and experts highlighted those upcoming Lebanese elections as a potential pivot point for anti-Hezbollah efforts. 

Ghaddar warned that, if Hezbollah is able to win all of the Shia seats in the next parliament and the Iranian regime does not fall, the political situation would functionally return to the pre-Oct. 7 status quo.

Stroul said the “U.S. must do more than insist that elections take place on time. Signaling U.S. interest in a parliamentary outcome that demonstrates a break with the pre-Oct. 7 governmental paralysis is critical. The worst case outcome would be a parliamentary makeup that leaves in place Hezbollah-affiliated politicians.”

Ghaddar and Schenker emphasized that the Lebanese diaspora could be a key deciding factor in the upcoming election, but it is unclear if they will be able to vote as required by Lebanese law. The millions of Lebanese citizens living abroad “will have a real impact on whether this government stays or whether we go back to business as usual,” Schenker said.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) highlighted legislation he introduced with Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL) ahead of the hearing to authorize sanctions on any individuals involved in blocking Lebanese citizens abroad from voting in the elections or who are otherwise obstructing the Lebanese elections.

Schenker called for the U.S. to press allies to fully designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and repudiated Barrack’s comments about Hezbollah having political and military elements — a stance mirroring that of some European countries. 

He said the U.S. needs to be clear that the entire group is a terrorist organization if it wants to see its allies agree to such a designation. But he was skeptical that France, in particular, would be willing to proceed with such a step.

Stroul argued the U.S. needs more technical experts and diplomats focused on Lebanon, noting the repeated turnover in U.S. envoys working on the portfolio. She also urged the Trump administration to welcome Lebanese President Joseph Aoun to the White House for a meeting.

President Donald Trump issued a stark warning to Hamas on Wednesday, setting a timeline for the terror group’s disarmament and stating that it must deliver on its agreement to demilitarize or face potential military consequences. 

“Hamas has agreed to give up their weapons,” Trump said, speaking to a packed room at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “If they don’t do it, they’ll be blown away very quickly.” 

The president has made several statements following the initial adoption in October of the Gaza peace plan, insisting that the group disarm or face consequences. During his Davos address, Trump seemed to issue a more concrete timeline for when he expects the administration to determine if Hamas has chosen to comply with the agreement.

“They’ve got to do it, and we’re going to know over the next two or three days, certainly over the next two or three weeks, whether or not they’re going to do it,” said Trump, who noted that disarmament is “not an easy thing” for Hamas, adding that group members are “born with a weapon in their hands.” 

The administration is a week into the launch of Phase 2 of Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan, which moves from “ceasefire to demilitarization, technocratic governance, and reconstruction,” according to White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. 

“We have 59 countries that are part of that whole peace deal, and some of those countries aren’t even near the Middle East, and they want to come in and take out Hamas,” said Trump. “They want to come in and they want to do whatever they can.”

Critics have remained skeptical over whether Hamas will comply and relinquish its weapons. The terrorist group has previously insisted that it would refuse to disarm until a Palestinian state is established. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who previously said Hamas is unlikely to disarm without Israeli confrontation, lauded Trump’s statement at Davos in a post on X on Wednesday.

“President Trump rightly put Hamas on a time clock for disarmament,” Graham wrote on X. “This is the right decision at the right time.” 

The Lebanese Armed Forces announced Thursday that it had taken operational control of the south of the country and successfully completed the first phase of its operation to disarm Hezbollah — a claim that experts say is unlikely to satisfy Israel and could risk further escalation. 

Under the November 2024 ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah, the Lebanese government was tasked with removing the terror group south of the Litani River, near Israel’s border, with a deadline of Dec. 31, 2025, before moving to the second phase of disarmament north of the Litani. 

Experts told Jewish Insider that the Lebanese army’s claim has done little to quell Israeli concerns. In response to the announcement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said the efforts by Lebanon’s government and army thus far were “far from sufficient.” 

“Despite the statements published today in Lebanon, the facts remain that extensive Hezbollah military infrastructure still exists south of the Litani River,” Israel’s foreign ministry stated in a post on X on Thursday. “The goal of disarming Hezbollah in southern Lebanon remains far from being achieved.” 

The foreign ministry also cited concerns over “cooperation between elements within the LAF and Hezbollah,” calling such coordination “regrettable.” 

Former IDF intelligence chief Tamir Hayman, head of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, called Lebanon’s announcement “an illusion … far from the truth.”

“On the ground, south of the Litani River, remain thousands of Hezbollah sites that were not cleaned of arms,” Hayman wrote in an analysis for Israel’s Channel 12. 

The ceasefire agreement followed more than a year of war that erupted after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel, which displaced more than 60,000 residents from northern Israel.

While Israel significantly degraded Hezbollah during the 2024 fighting — taking out the group’s leadership and destroying much of its arsenal — concerns have remained over the group’s continued presence near the Israeli border and rearmament during the ceasefire.

“My view is that the ceasefire itself, at the time it went into effect, was a mistake, because you had Hezbollah on the ropes,” said David Daoud, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “There was no indication that the Lebanese were going to start moving against Hezbollah if a ceasefire was going to go into effect.”

Daoud added that the ceasefire gave Hezbollah “breathing room.” Israel has remained skeptical of Lebanon’s ability to fully disarm the terrorist group, even with Hezbollah’s weak stature. 

Hayman warned that “Hezbollah is not extinct. It is in an accelerated recovery process,” backed by Iranian funding, which includes training officers, opening small workshops that manufacture drones and procuring Syrian Army weapons on the black market. 

Since the establishment of the ceasefire, Israel has continued to strike inside Lebanon, citing Hezbollah’s violations and efforts to rebuild its military capabilities. 

Most recently, the IDF struck “Hezbollah infrastructure” in southern Lebanon on Sunday, citing “continuous violations of ceasefire understandings.”

“A short while ago, the IDF struck shafts used for storing weapons in several military sites belonging to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon,” the IDF said in a statement. “Hezbollah’s terror activity at these sites constitutes a violation of the understandings between Israel and Lebanon. The IDF will continue to operate to remove any threat posed to the State of Israel.”

The announcement about disarmament is “a stunt meant to get what they want out of the Israelis, meaning an end to the attacks [on Hezbollah military infrastructure],” said Daoud. “The Lebanese talk about it and nothing ever gets done.” 

Daoud added that Lebanon has “not done anything to counter Hezbollah,” even in “minimal areas.”

Hanin Ghaddar, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the situation has become increasingly tense because there is “no indication” that Lebanon will move forward with the next phases of disarmament and that it is “more likely” the country is “not going to move north of Litani” in order to avoid confrontation with Hezbollah.

Analysts said this inaction could prompt Israel to resume broader military strikes against Hezbollah targets, potentially reigniting tensions along the border. 

“The reaction would be another escalation, and that’s what everybody is expecting, including the Lebanese government, president, army, etc.,” said Ghaddar. “It seems to me they know this is going to be the reaction of the Israelis. They know that there will be escalation if they don’t do more [to confront Hezbollah].”

Daoud agreed that further rounds of hostilities are “possible,” adding that the Israelis “have been talking about amping up escalation.” However, he noted that he does not expect a return to war. 

“My sense is we’ll see punctuations of escalation, maybe some weeks where there’s more intense bombing, more wide-scale bombing, maybe some more operations, more targeted killings, but that remains short of war … [and] short of provoking Hezbollah into a massive response,” said Daoud.

“If it continues to remain true that Lebanon is not going to act against Hezbollah in a meaningful way, then the necessary evil, if you will, of military escalation by Israel is the only option to prevent Hezbollah from regenerating,” said Daoud.

Hayman said that Israel will need to take action, but should weigh the right timing to ensure it doesn’t draw attention away from the mass protests currently taking place in Iran. 

In addition, he wrote, Israel must find a way to ensure the next operation against Hezbollah brings long-term safety to northern Israel.  

Reports have indicated that Washington has also been unsatisfied with the Lebanese government’s efforts to confront Hezbollah. Israeli media reported that Netanyahu told members of his Cabinet that President Donald Trump gave him the “green light” for further operations in Lebanon to counter the group. 

However, Daoud said the Trump administration would likely prefer to avoid the resumption of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, noting that Trump’s “green light” likely refers to strategic operations rather than all out conflict.

“I don’t think President Trump wants to see another war,” said Daoud. “The administration wants to free up attention and resources to deal with bigger problems [such as Gaza or Iran], rather than what is perceived as a small fish like Lebanon, despite the fact that I would say Hezbollah is a significant threat to the United States.” 

The terrorist group has thus far refrained from responding to Israeli strikes in what Daoud described as an effort to rebuild, prepare for the “long run” and not provoke Jerusalem or the U.S.

“[Hezbollah is] far from done. What they want is to stanch the bleeding as much as possible,” said Daoud. “That’s why they’ve been taking all these assassinations very quietly. Their calculus is: ‘Do we lose five guys a week maximum, or do we trigger the Israelis with the Trump administration in office to the point where we lose 100 guys a week?’”

JI’s senior political correspondent Lahav Harkov contributed to this report. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) expressed skepticism on Monday that Hamas will comply with disarmament requirements in its U.S.-backed ceasefire agreement with Israel, saying that finishing off the terrorist group may require further confrontation from Israel. 

“To expect Hamas to disarm without the threat of confrontation is unrealistic,” Graham wrote in a post on X. “Therefore, it is my growing belief that Hamas is not going to disarm but instead is in the process of consolidating power in Gaza by attacking those who oppose them.” 

Few Republican lawmakers have thus far questioned if President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan — which has brought all the living hostages back to Israel — will be sufficient to take Hamas out of power in Gaza. 

“Under the current approach, every day that goes by allows Hamas to get stronger and more lethal,” said Graham. “The world needs to understand that Israel cannot tolerate this outcome. If Israel feels it needs to reengage in Gaza to finish Hamas off, they have my full support.”

Israel currently controls 58% of Gaza, marked by a yellow “initial withdrawal line,” while Hamas maintains a presence in the western part of the enclave. The terrorist group has failed to disarm or relinquish power yet, as indicated in Phase 1 of Trump’s proposal, instead mobilizing more fighters and clashing with rival Palestinian gangs. 

Phase 2 Trump’s plan envisions an International Stabilization Force, comprised of troops from mediating countries, to stabilize the Gaza Strip. However, several leaders have indicated they have  little appetite to participate, including the King of Jordan, who told the BBC “nobody will want to touch” peace enforcing.

“I completely agree with the King of Jordan’s analysis regarding what it takes to stabilize the Gaza strip,” Graham said on X. “To expect an international force to go to war with Hamas to require their disarmament is unrealistic.”

With Trump’s plan at a standstill, experts say a new strategy may be required in Gaza.  

“If Hamas refuses to disarm and no international force steps forward that is prepared to do the hard work of forcibly disarming it, why should the world grant Hamas a total veto over positive movement on the rest of Trump’s 20-point plan?” John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, told Jewish Insider. “There’s no doubt that both in Israel and the United States there is active discussion of how to take advantage of this.”

After an agreement was reached between Israel and Hamas to initiate the first stage of President Donald Trump’s ceasefire proposal in mid-October, the IDF retreated to an “initial withdrawal line,” leaving Israeli forces in control of 58% of the enclave as Israel and mediators push Hamas to release the remaining deceased hostages and comply with the rest of the agreement, including disarmament and relinquishing power. 

The line divides Gaza in two: an “East,” controlled by the IDF and serving as a buffer zone to Israel, and a “West,” run by Hamas and host to the concentrated Palestinian population.

In interviews with Jewish Insider, experts painted a picture of two Gazas, explaining that the area Israel holds can be used strategically to root out Hamas and maintain leverage if hostilities resume. But challenges lie ahead in rebuilding the enclave and moving Palestinians back into the eastern region.

“There are virtually no Palestinians living in the eastern part of Gaza beyond the yellow line. The eastern part does not see the movement and the maneuvers of Hamas. That’s still confined to the western part,” Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, a Gaza native and resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told JI. “Actual civilians of Gaza are all entirely under Hamas’ control in the west.”

Alkhatib said Israel has kept Palestinians from returning to the east over security and operational concerns, but also as leverage.

“How do you ensure that you don’t have Hamas members embedding themselves into the civilians, as they have done time and again? How do you ensure that Gazans coming into the east aren’t hindering clearance operations of tunnels or unexploded munitions?” Alkhatib asked. “I also think that the return of Palestinians to beyond the ‘yellow zone’ is leverage that Israel is holding onto until phase one is thoroughly and fully complete.”

Vice President JD Vance, in Israel last week, said during his trip that Palestinians should be able to move into a “Hamas-free zone” in southern Gaza “in the next couple months.” But experts warned that the timeline will be difficult given the conditions on the ground.

David May, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said Israel has developed technology to recognize Hamas fighters and could use it to allow non-combatants access to the area under Israeli control. But even if Israel can vet who enters, eastern Gaza has endured destruction comparable to the west, and serious concerns await displaced civilians.

“The ubiquitous tunnel system that Hamas has dug in Gaza, which no doubt traverses the yellow line that serves as the ceasefire line, limits Israel’s ability to provide a safe zone in the eastern portion of Gaza,” May told JI.

Palestinians who move into the Hamas-free zone and those working on rebuilding would also face the issue of land ownership, Alkhatib noted.

“Who owns these lands, and where do people have their homes? Every plot of land in Gaza is accounted for,” he said. “You can’t just rebuild Gaza without taking into consideration that you’re doing so over pieces of land and properties that belonged to people.”

“There could be a process in which that happens, regardless of any claims to the land,” Alkhatib continued. “Basically there could be a fund established that allows for the compensation of rightful owners. But beyond that, eastern Gaza could be developed to create a compelling example that others in Gaza want to be part of.”

Despite these challenges, experts say finding ways to take in Palestinians to east Gaza could isolate Hamas in the west — a strategy Israel could use to undermine the terrorist group’s authority and bring in international support for rebuilding.

“East Gaza under IDF control would become a Hamas-free zone where the world comes together to support the emergence of thriving new political, social and economic institutions where the lives of average Gazans would flourish,” said John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. 

“Hamas-controlled west Gaza, by contrast, would be condemned to repression, stagnation and sustained misery. Over time, the east would become a huge magnet for the vast majority of Gaza’s population who would vote with their feet to live within a ‘free Gaza,’ fatally isolating and undermining Hamas rule and legitimacy,” Hannah continued.

May said this contrast can show Gazans “an alternative to life under Hamas’ corruption and oppression” and make donors more likely to contribute to rebuilding projects knowing aid won’t be intercepted by Hamas.

“If there is running water, sewer, electricity, internet, fixed roads and infrastructure, if there is something that resembles jobs and economic opportunity, and you create vetted methods for accepting incoming civilians into that area, then absolutely there could be a way in such that slowly drains the population out of west Gaza,” said Alkhatib.

However, Hannah argued that keeping half the enclave as a buffer zone could also serve Israel’s interests if fighting resumes.

“Right now, Israel controls an extensive buffer zone containing very few hostile Gazans standing between its border communities and Hamas-controlled west Gaza,” said Hannah. “How eager should [Israel] be to attract over a million or more Gazans to pick up and move much closer to Israel’s borders?”

May said Israel may have plenty of time to decide on how to proceed should Hamas continue to be uncooperative with the implementation of the rest of the first phase of the agreement. 

“There is still a lot up in the air,” said May. “As ceasefire lines in the Middle East have a tendency to become permanent borders, Israel needs to plan for the possibility of the yellow line becoming a long-term territorial marker.” 

A group of 30 House Democrats urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to leverage a joint statement from the Arab League this summer — which called for Hamas’ disarmament and removal of power, the release of hostages and a path toward a two-state solution — as a potential diplomatic breakthrough for the region.

The lawmakers also condemned the unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state recently undertaken by several close U.S. allies.

“While there is much we disagree with in the statement, we do believe that this breakthrough presents a rare and urgent opportunity to ensure Israel’s security and create a brighter future for innocent Palestinians free from Hamas through American leadership,” the lawmakers said in a letter to Rubio on Thursday, emphasizing that it is the first time the Arab League has explicitly rejected Hamas.

“The statement made at the conference offers a unique opportunity — one that strengthens both Israel’s long-term security and Palestinians’ aspirations for self-determination under accountable, nonviolent leadership,” the letter continues. “While we once again emphasize that we do not endorse everything in the text, we recognize the unprecedented nature of the declaration and believe it presents a positive shift that opens the door to productive diplomacy and long-term solutions.”

The lawmakers urged Rubio to work with Israel to bring together regional and international partners to broker an agreement that would immediately and unconditionally free the hostages, remove Hamas from power in Gaza and achieve a “responsible deescalation of the conflict” in Gaza that would allow for rebuilding, governmental reform and peace.

They said that such an approach would be “far more constructive than recent unilateral and performative recognitions of a Palestinian state by other nations, which risk emboldening Hamas, entrenching division, and undermining the very legitimacy and peace such recognition purports to advance.”

“With regional partners signaling readiness to help facilitate both security and governance transitions, the United States has a pivotal role to play in turning principle into progress toward a two-state solution,” the letter reads. “This is a chance to protect Israel — our strongest ally — and align American values with regional momentum, and also leave a lasting legacy.”

The letter was led by Reps. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Greg Landsman (D-OH) and Tim Kennedy (D-NY), joined by Reps. Dan Goldman (D-NY), Grace Meng (D-NY), Marilyn Strickland (D-WA), Emilia Sykes (D-OH), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Kim Schrier (D-WA), Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Angie Craig (D-MN), Kevin Mullin (D-CA), Juan Vargas (D-CA), Ritchie Torres (D-NY), Chris Pappas (D-NH), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), George Latimer (D-NY), Haley Stevens (D-MI), Darren Soto (D-FL), Greg Stanton (D-AZ), Nikki Budzinski (D-IL), Shri Thanedar (D-MI) and Wesley Bell (D-MO).

Craig, Pappas and Stevens are all running for the Senate in their respective states.

Democratic Majority for Israel supported the letter.

“The U.S. must act quickly to seize on this diplomatic opportunity which presents a unique opening to both ensure Israel’s security and create a future for Israelis and Palestinians free from the terrorist group Hamas,” the group’s CEO, Brian Romick, said in a statement. “While there is much we disagree with in the Arab League statement, its historic nature is unprecedented. By calling for the release of hostages, condemning the October 7 attacks, disavowing Hamas and endorsing a two-state path, Arab countries have signaled a potential willingness to be part of a new, constructive chapter for the Middle East.”

“At the same time, we call on all leaders to reject unilateral performative recognition of a Palestinian state which risks emboldening Hamas rather than advancing peace,” Romick continued.

Michel Issa, the Lebanese-American businessman nominated by the Trump administration to serve as U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, said Tuesday that the Lebanese government and armed forces must act swiftly and decisively to disarm Hezbollah and remove its influence across Lebanese society.

Issa argued at his Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing that the war between Israel and Hezbollah, “while devastating, has opened a narrow but meaningful window for progress,” in combination with the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire deal, the fall of the Assad regime in Syria and recent blows to Iran’s military and nuclear program. 

He praised the new Lebanese government as a “promising development,” saying it has made progress in combating Hezbollah’s influence.

“The Iran-Israel escalation is a reminder of how delicate an opportunity this is that could be squandered if Iran drags Lebanon back down to the path of conflict,” Issa continued. “The government has made clear it will not tolerate any violation of the cessation of hostility, and since implementation, they have begun to curb Hezbollah’s influence. But more must be done. Urgently. The full disarmament of Hezbollah is not optional. It is essential. The time to act is now.”

Finishing that job and rooting out Hezbollah’s influence across Lebanon will be difficult and take time, he added, given its decades of influence and domination across Lebanese society.

“Hezbollah needs to go. Hezbollah needs to be disarmed to bring some kind of hope to Lebanon,” he said. As long as supply lines from Iran remain cut and with continued support from the United States and other partners, he continued, he believes that over time Hezbollah’s influence can be minimized and the government can secure its hold on power.

Issa said that it’s critical that the Lebanese government maintain full control of rebuilding efforts in southern Lebanon, and that it cannot allow Hezbollah to “hijack” that work as it has in the past. He added that the country must work to ensure governance reform and financial stability, accountability and growth.

He also argued that the U.S. should continue to push for a final settlement regarding the borders between Israel and Lebanon and ultimately normalize relations between the two countries.

Issa spoke highly of the Lebanese Armed Forces, saying that they will be critical to efforts to combat Hezbollah and have been a partner to the United States, which the LAF should continue to support and cooperate with. He said that the LAF is one of the few institutions that enjoys widespread trust and support within Lebanon.

“They are doing a great role in creating stability that is very well needed in Lebanon,” Issa said. “I believe they are ready to do whatever they need to do, to take over and to become the sole military power for the Lebanese government.”

Asked about whether the mandate for the United Nations peacekeeping force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, should be extended, Issa did not offer a definitive answer, saying that its role is changing with the LAF stepping up its role in monitoring the border with Israel and ensuring that Hezbollah does not continue to threaten the Jewish state.

Issa, who was born in Beirut, said that he had renounced his Lebanese citizenship in connection with his nomination, to show his commitment to the American people and the U.S.’ interests.

Duke Buchan, an investment banker who served as U.S. ambassador to Spain in Trump’s first term and is now nominated to be U.S. ambassador to Morocco, testified alongside Issa.

Buchan said repeatedly that he would work to support the Abraham Accords, both to expand the relationship between Israel and Morocco and to urge Morocco to encourage other countries to normalize relations with Israel.

He said it would be one of his “highest priorities” to work to reestablish the Negev Forum dialogue among Israel and its Arab allies, and to convince Morocco to “step up even more.”

Buchan said he supports U.S. recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony claimed by both Morocco and the indigenous Sahrawi people, a significant contingent of whom are refugees living in Algeria. The U.S. agreed to recognize Moroccan sovereignty over the territory when the country joined the Abraham Accords in 2020. 

“Secretary [of State Marco] Rubio reiterated that the United States recognizes Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara and supports Morocco’s serious, credible and realistic autonomy proposal as the only basis for a just and lasting solution to the dispute,” Buchan said. “If confirmed, I will facilitate progress towards this goal.”

But pressed later in the hearing on bipartisan concerns about the U.S.’ decision to recognize Moroccan sovereignty, Buchan said he was not familiar with those concerns and that he would defer to the president and secretary of state to set policy.