Analysis Report January 29, 2026
Executive Summary
The United States has unveiled an unprecedented demilitarization framework for Gaza, featuring an internationally funded weapons buyback program as a cornerstone of the Trump administration’s Board of Peace initiative. This approach represents a novel experiment in post-conflict disarmament with far-reaching implications for regional stability, international peacekeeping doctrine, and Singapore’s strategic interests in the Middle East and global security architecture.
This report examines the mechanics of the demilitarization program, evaluates its prospects for success, analyzes regional security dynamics, and assesses the multifaceted impacts on Singapore’s diplomatic, economic, and strategic positioning.
1. The Gaza Demilitarization Framework: Structure and Mechanisms
1.1 The Weapons Buyback Program
The weapons buyback initiative represents an innovative approach to disarmament in conflict zones. According to U.S. Ambassador Mike Waltz’s statement to the UN Security Council, the program will operate through “an agreed process of decommissioning supported by an internationally funded buyback and reintegration program.” While specific details remain undisclosed, similar programs in other contexts provide insight into potential mechanisms:
Financial Incentives: Buyback programs typically offer monetary compensation for surrendered weapons, with payment scales varying by weapon type and condition. Given Hamas’s reported arsenal of approximately 60,000 assault rifles, thousands of rockets, and anti-tank missiles, the financial requirements could reach hundreds of millions of dollars.
Verification and Monitoring: Independent international monitors will supervise the decommissioning process to ensure weapons are permanently placed beyond operational use. This likely involves cataloging, photographing, and physically destroying surrendered weapons under international observation.
Reintegration Component: The program includes provisions for reintegrating former combatants into civilian life. This may encompass vocational training, employment opportunities, psychological support, and economic assistance – addressing root causes of militancy beyond mere weapon collection.
Infrastructure Destruction: Beyond individual weapons, the framework mandates destruction of all military infrastructure including weapons production facilities, underground tunnel networks, and offensive fortifications. This represents a comprehensive approach to ensuring long-term demilitarization.
1.2 Institutional Architecture
The demilitarization effort operates within a complex institutional framework established by the UN Security Council resolution in November 2025:
Trump’s Board of Peace: This transitional administration coordinates funding and sets frameworks for Gaza’s redevelopment. The board currently includes 26 countries and operates with a mandate through 2027, serving as the primary coordinating body for international involvement.
Palestinian National Committee: This body, overseen by the Board of Peace, provides Palestinian input into the governance transition. Its role includes coordinating with Palestinian factions and ensuring local buy-in for disarmament initiatives.
International Stabilization Force (ISF): A temporary multinational force will establish security and stability in Gaza, enabling Israeli Defense Forces withdrawal based on agreed milestones linked to demilitarization progress. Troop-contributing countries have not yet been publicly announced.
Ceasefire Guarantors: The United States, Egypt, and Qatar serve as guarantors for the October 2025 ceasefire agreement, coordinating with Israeli military leadership and the ISF on withdrawal timelines and security standards.
2. Current Security Situation and Disarmament Challenges
2.1 Hamas’s Arsenal and Territorial Control
Despite the ceasefire, Hamas remains a formidable military organization controlling just under half of Gaza’s territory. Israel’s UN Ambassador Danny Danon provided detailed intelligence on Hamas’s remaining capabilities, highlighting the scope of the disarmament challenge:
Small Arms: Approximately 60,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles and similar small arms remain in Hamas possession. These weapons are distributed among fighters and potentially hidden in civilian areas, complicating collection efforts.
Heavy Weapons: Thousands of rockets capable of striking Israeli territory, along with substantial quantities of anti-tank missiles. These represent the primary threat to Israeli security and the most politically sensitive category for disarmament negotiations.
Dual-Use Concern: According to Israeli sources, Hamas uses these weapons not only against Israeli targets but also to maintain internal control over Gaza’s population, intimidating political opponents and suppressing dissent. This internal security dimension complicates disarmament, as Hamas may view weapons retention as essential to maintaining authority.
Underground Infrastructure: An extensive tunnel network serves both military and smuggling purposes. Destroying this infrastructure while minimizing civilian disruption represents a significant engineering and humanitarian challenge.
2.2 Hamas’s Position and Negotiation Dynamics
Hamas has reportedly agreed to discuss disarmament with other Palestinian factions and international mediators, but significant obstacles remain. Two Hamas officials indicated that neither Washington nor mediators have presented concrete, detailed disarmament proposals. This suggests negotiations remain at preliminary stages.
A critical development involves potential amnesty provisions. U.S. officials, speaking anonymously, suggested that disarmament by Hamas militants might be accompanied by some form of amnesty for the organization. This raises complex questions:
Legal Accountability: How to balance demands for justice regarding alleged war crimes with pragmatic needs for successful disarmament. Blanket amnesty could undermine international law principles, while insisting on prosecutions may prevent weapons surrender.
Political Transformation: Whether Hamas can transition from armed resistance movement to political party, similar to historical precedents like the Irish Republican Army’s evolution into Sinn Féin, or the Palestine Liberation Organization’s transformation.
Internal Divisions: Potential splits within Hamas between pragmatists willing to disarm and hardliners committed to armed struggle. Managing these internal dynamics will be crucial for successful implementation.
3. Historical Context and Comparative Analysis
3.1 Weapons Buyback Programs: Lessons from Global Experience
Weapons buyback programs have been implemented in various post-conflict and high-crime contexts worldwide, with mixed results. Understanding these precedents illuminates both opportunities and pitfalls for Gaza:
Afghanistan (2003-2005): The UN Development Programme conducted disarmament programs following the Taliban’s ouster, collecting over 63,000 weapons. However, significant arsenals remained hidden, and the program struggled with verification and preventing re-armament through porous borders.
Colombia (2003-2006): Disarmament of paramilitary groups involved both weapons collection and comprehensive reintegration programs. While initially successful, incomplete implementation allowed some groups to rearm, demonstrating the importance of sustained commitment and economic alternatives.
Australia (1996-1997): Following a mass shooting, Australia implemented a mandatory buyback of semi-automatic firearms, collecting over 650,000 weapons. Success factors included strong political will, adequate funding, and importantly, a non-conflict context where weapons were not tied to organizational power structures.
Key Lessons: Successful programs require adequate funding, credible verification mechanisms, genuine alternatives to armed activity, sustained international commitment, and addressing underlying political grievances that motivated armed resistance. Gaza faces unique challenges as weapons are central to Hamas’s organizational identity and political power.
3.2 Demilitarization in Post-Conflict Settings
Beyond buyback programs specifically, broader demilitarization efforts offer instructive parallels:
Northern Ireland Peace Process: The Good Friday Agreement included provisions for paramilitary disarmament, accomplished through independent international monitoring and parallel political progress. Success required years of negotiation, trust-building, and ensuring armed groups saw credible political pathways to achieve their objectives.
Japanese Demilitarization (1945-1952): Following World War II, comprehensive demilitarization under Allied occupation succeeded through complete military defeat, constitutional constraints, and massive economic reconstruction. While circumstances differ dramatically from Gaza, this demonstrates that thorough demilitarization is possible with sufficient resources and political will.
4. Regional Security Implications
4.1 Israel’s Security Calculus
Israeli cooperation is essential for the demilitarization framework’s success. Israel’s security establishment views complete Hamas disarmament as a prerequisite for sustainable peace, but several concerns complicate implementation:
Verification Skepticism: Israeli officials express doubt about international monitors’ ability to detect hidden weapons caches and prevent smuggling. Past experience with weapons concealment in Lebanon and Gaza fuels this skepticism.
Phased Withdrawal Risks: Linking IDF withdrawal to demilitarization milestones creates vulnerability if Hamas retains hidden arsenals or rearming occurs after Israeli forces depart. Israel requires ironclad security guarantees and potentially residual military presence or surveillance capabilities.
Border Security: Preventing weapons smuggling through Egypt, maritime routes, and potentially future border crossings requires sophisticated monitoring systems and international cooperation. Past failures to prevent tunnel construction and weapons smuggling inform Israeli demands for robust border security mechanisms.
4.2 Palestinian Authority and Governance Transition
The framework envisions eventual Palestinian Authority control of Gaza following satisfactory reforms. This raises complex governance challenges:
Legitimacy Questions: The Palestinian Authority faces credibility challenges among Gaza’s population, particularly given Hamas’s longstanding control and the PA’s West Bank focus. Building popular support requires demonstrable improvements in living conditions, governance quality, and political representation.
Security Capacity: The PA’s security forces would need substantial strengthening to maintain order in Gaza without Israeli military presence. This includes training, equipment, and institutional development – potentially requiring years of international support.
Political Unity: Reconciling Hamas’s Islamist ideology with the PA’s secular nationalism presents fundamental political challenges. Integration would require compromises from both sides and potentially new governance structures accommodating diverse Palestinian political perspectives.
4.3 Regional Powers and International Dynamics
Several regional and international actors hold significant influence over the demilitarization process:
Egypt: As a ceasefire guarantor and controller of Gaza’s southern border, Egypt plays a crucial role in preventing weapons smuggling and facilitating humanitarian access. Egyptian cooperation in border security and mediation between Palestinian factions is essential.
Qatar: Also a ceasefire guarantor, Qatar maintains relationships with Hamas and has historically provided financial support to Gaza. Qatar’s involvement could facilitate dialogue and provide economic incentives for compliance.
Iran: As Hamas’s primary external supporter, Iranian policy significantly impacts disarmament prospects. If Iran opposes demilitarization and continues weapons supply or financial support for rearmament, the program faces serious obstacles.
Russia and China: Both abstained from the UN Security Council resolution establishing the Board of Peace, citing insufficient UN involvement. While not blocking the initiative, their ambivalence could complicate international coordination and legitimacy.
Arab States: Broader Arab world engagement, particularly Gulf states, could provide financial resources for reconstruction and political support for normalized Israeli-Palestinian relations. Recent normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states create potential for regional cooperation.
5. Singapore’s Strategic Interests and Policy Implications
5.1 Diplomatic Engagement and Regional Stability
Singapore has consistently advocated for peaceful resolution of international conflicts and adherence to international law. The Gaza demilitarization initiative presents several diplomatic considerations:
ASEAN Leadership: Recent statements by Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan urging dialogue on Thailand-Cambodia border tensions demonstrate Singapore’s commitment to regional peace. This principle extends to supporting credible international peace initiatives globally, including the Middle East.
UN Engagement: As a periodic UN Security Council member and strong supporter of international institutions, Singapore has interest in ensuring multilateral frameworks for conflict resolution succeed. The Board of Peace initiative, while U.S.-led, operates with UN authorization and could set precedents for future peacekeeping efforts.
Muslim Community Relations: With a significant Muslim minority comprising about 15% of its population, Singapore must navigate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sensitively. Supporting legitimate Palestinian rights while maintaining constructive relationships with Israel requires careful diplomatic balance.
5.2 Economic Dimensions
The Gaza reconstruction effort, coordinated by the Board of Peace, represents potentially significant economic opportunities and challenges for Singapore:
Infrastructure Development: Singaporean engineering firms possess expertise in urban planning, port development, and infrastructure reconstruction that could contribute to Gaza’s redevelopment. Companies like Surbana Jurong have international experience in post-conflict reconstruction.
Financial Services: Singapore’s banking sector could facilitate international funding flows for reconstruction, though compliance with sanctions and anti-money laundering regulations requires careful navigation.
Regional Trade: Middle East stability impacts global oil markets and trade routes. Singapore, as a major refining center and maritime hub, benefits from regional stability. Reduced conflict risk could lower insurance costs and enhance supply chain reliability.
Technology Sector: Recent investments by major semiconductor firms in Singapore, such as EUV Tech’s new office at MapleTree High-Tech Park announced on January 28, highlight Singapore’s growing tech hub status. Middle East stability supports the regional business environment essential for continued foreign investment.
5.3 Security and Counter-Terrorism Implications
Singapore’s robust counter-terrorism framework and experience with radicalization makes the Gaza demilitarization effort particularly relevant:
Radicalization Concerns: Singapore has dealt with terrorism-related incidents, including the January 2026 case of a 14-year-old boy issued an Internal Security Act restriction order for creating pro-ISIS videos. The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict serves as a radicalizing narrative. Successful Gaza demilitarization could reduce extremist propaganda effectiveness.
Regional Terrorism Networks: Continued Middle East instability enables terrorist organizations to operate, recruit, and plan attacks globally. Hamas disarmament, if successful, could disrupt these networks and reduce terrorism risk throughout Southeast Asia.
Lessons for Deradicalization: The reintegration component of Gaza’s weapons buyback program offers potential lessons for Singapore’s own deradicalization efforts. Understanding what works in transitioning former militants to civilian life could inform domestic programs.
Maritime Security: As one of the world’s busiest ports, Singapore has vital interests in secure maritime trade routes. Middle East conflicts can escalate to maritime incidents, threatening shipping lanes. Regional stability supports Singapore’s position as a secure, reliable shipping hub.
5.4 International Law and Peacekeeping Doctrine
Singapore’s strong support for rules-based international order means the Gaza demilitarization framework’s legal and institutional innovations merit close attention:
Transitional Administration Precedents: The Board of Peace represents a hybrid model combining U.S. leadership with UN authorization and multinational participation. If successful, this could become a template for future post-conflict governance transitions, potentially relevant to other intractable conflicts.
Sovereignty Questions: The framework’s relationship to Palestinian self-determination and eventual statehood raises important questions about international intervention in internal conflicts. Singapore, having navigated its own path to sovereignty, has particular interest in ensuring transitional arrangements respect fundamental rights to self-governance.
Accountability Mechanisms: How the framework addresses war crimes, accountability for violence, and transitional justice sets precedents for international law. Singapore supports accountability while recognizing that pragmatic compromises may be necessary for achieving peace.
6. Challenges and Risk Factors
6.1 Implementation Obstacles
Several practical challenges could undermine the demilitarization effort:
Verification Difficulties: Detecting hidden weapons in Gaza’s dense urban environment, including tunnels and residential areas, presents enormous technical challenges. Even sophisticated monitoring cannot guarantee complete disarmament.
Internal Hamas Divisions: Factions within Hamas may resist disarmament, potentially leading to splinter groups continuing armed struggle. Managing these dynamics requires sophisticated understanding of Hamas’s internal politics.
Economic Viability: Without massive reconstruction investment and economic opportunity creation, former militants lack alternatives to armed activity. Insufficient funding or implementation delays could cause program failure.
Timeline Pressures: The Board of Peace mandate runs through 2027. If significant progress isn’t achieved within this timeframe, international commitment may wane and the initiative could collapse.
6.2 Political Risks
Political developments could derail the demilitarization framework:
Israeli Political Changes: Israeli governments have diverse views on Palestinian issues. Political shifts could alter commitment to the framework or change conditions for IDF withdrawal.
U.S. Policy Evolution: The Board of Peace reflects Trump administration priorities. Future U.S. administrations might adjust or abandon the initiative, undermining international confidence and participation.
Regional Spoilers: Actors opposed to Israeli-Palestinian peace, including certain regional powers or extremist groups, may actively sabotage the process through violence, propaganda, or continued weapons supply.
Palestinian Public Opinion: If Gaza’s population perceives the framework as imposed externally or favoring Israeli security over Palestinian rights, public resistance could undermine implementation regardless of leadership agreements.
6.3 Humanitarian and Human Rights Concerns
The demilitarization process must navigate significant humanitarian challenges:
Displacement and Reconstruction: Widespread destruction from recent conflict requires massive reconstruction efforts. Prioritizing demilitarization over humanitarian needs could create resentment and undermine cooperation.
Freedom of Movement: Security measures to prevent weapons smuggling may restrict Gaza residents’ movement and economic opportunities, perpetuating grievances that fueled conflict.
Accountability vs. Reconciliation: Balancing justice for conflict victims with pragmatic needs for militant disarmament presents difficult moral and legal choices. Overly lenient approaches may deny victims justice; overly punitive approaches may prevent cooperation.
7. Opportunities and Success Factors
7.1 Favorable Conditions
Despite challenges, several factors favor successful implementation:
War Fatigue: After prolonged conflict, both Israeli and Palestinian populations show strong desire for sustainable peace. This creates political space for compromise and willingness to try new approaches.
International Commitment: The 26-country participation in the Board of Peace demonstrates significant international buy-in. Sustained engagement and funding could provide resources necessary for success.
Economic Incentives: Gaza’s population has endured severe economic hardship. Reconstruction funding and economic development tied to demilitarization creates powerful incentives for cooperation.
Regional Normalization: Recent Abraham Accords and other Israeli normalization agreements with Arab states create regional momentum toward peace. This broader trend supports the Gaza initiative.
7.2 Keys to Success
Based on historical precedents and current conditions, several factors appear critical:
Adequate Funding: The weapons buyback and reintegration programs require substantial financial resources sustained over years. International donors must commit to long-term funding beyond initial enthusiasm.
Credible Monitoring: Independent verification must be rigorous enough to satisfy Israeli security concerns while respecting Palestinian dignity and sovereignty aspirations. Building trust in monitoring mechanisms is essential.
Political Progress: Demilitarization must accompany visible progress toward Palestinian self-determination. Without political horizon, disarmament appears as capitulation rather than step toward statehood.
Economic Transformation: Providing genuine economic opportunities through reconstruction, business development, and employment creation gives former militants alternatives to armed activity.
Regional Cooperation: Egypt, Qatar, and other regional powers must actively support implementation through border security, financial assistance, and political pressure on both parties to uphold commitments.
8. Policy Recommendations for Singapore
8.1 Diplomatic Engagement
Monitor and Assess: Singapore should closely track the demilitarization program’s progress, analyzing successes and failures for potential lessons applicable to other regional conflicts.
Multilateral Support: Through ASEAN and UN forums, Singapore can advocate for sustained international commitment to Gaza reconstruction while ensuring accountability and transparency in fund utilization.
Balanced Positioning: Maintain constructive relationships with both Israeli and Palestinian interlocutors, positioning Singapore as a bridge-builder supporting pragmatic solutions that respect legitimate security and political concerns of all parties.
8.2 Economic Opportunities
Infrastructure Expertise: Singaporean firms could contribute technical expertise in urban planning, water management, and sustainable development to Gaza reconstruction efforts, building on experience in challenging environments.
Financial Facilitation: Singapore’s banking sector could potentially facilitate transparent, accountable financial flows for reconstruction, though careful attention to compliance and risk management is essential.
Knowledge Transfer: Singapore’s experience in economic development, education reform, and institution-building could inform Gaza’s reconstruction through technical assistance programs or training initiatives.
8.3 Security Cooperation
Counter-Terrorism Insights: Share appropriate lessons from Singapore’s counter-terrorism and deradicalization programs with international partners involved in Gaza reintegration efforts.
Maritime Security: Advocate for robust maritime security measures to prevent weapons smuggling while ensuring legitimate trade flows, drawing on Singapore’s port security expertise.
Regional Stability: Support broader Middle East stability initiatives that reduce terrorism risk and enhance secure trade routes, benefiting Singapore’s maritime and aviation hub status.
8.4 International Law and Institutions
Support Multilateralism: Advocate for strong UN involvement in Gaza’s future governance, addressing Russian and Chinese concerns about insufficient UN role while supporting the Board of Peace’s practical work.
Promote Best Practices: Share lessons from the Gaza experience with other conflict zones through international forums, contributing to evolving peacekeeping and post-conflict reconstruction doctrine.
9. Conclusion
The Gaza demilitarization initiative represents an ambitious experiment in post-conflict disarmament, combining weapons buyback programs, international monitoring, and comprehensive reconstruction within a novel governance framework. Success would provide a model for resolving other intractable conflicts; failure could entrench mutual distrust and perpetuate violence.
For Singapore, the outcome matters across multiple dimensions. Diplomatically, it tests multilateral approaches to conflict resolution that Singapore champions. Economically, Middle East stability impacts trade routes, energy markets, and investment climate. From a security perspective, successful Hamas demilitarization could reduce regional terrorism risk and provide lessons for countering extremism.
The program faces formidable challenges: verifying complete disarmament, managing internal Palestinian political dynamics, satisfying Israeli security concerns, maintaining international commitment, and providing genuine economic alternatives to armed struggle. Historical precedents offer both encouraging examples and cautionary tales about the difficulty of transforming armed movements into political parties.
Critical success factors include adequate sustained funding, credible independent monitoring, parallel political progress toward Palestinian self-determination, comprehensive economic reconstruction, and active regional cooperation. Without these elements, even generous buyback incentives may prove insufficient to achieve lasting disarmament.
Singapore should monitor developments closely, maintain balanced diplomatic engagement, explore appropriate economic and technical contributions, share relevant security expertise, and advocate for strong multilateral institutions in Gaza’s governance transition. The initiative’s success or failure will shape regional security dynamics, international peacekeeping doctrine, and global approaches to post-conflict reconstruction for years to come.
As Singapore Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan recently stated in another regional context, “hope peace will prevail” through sustained dialogue. This sentiment applies equally to Gaza, where creative diplomacy, substantial resources, and sustained international commitment offer the best prospects for transforming a conflict zone into a functioning society. The weapons buyback program, while just one component of a comprehensive framework, symbolizes the transition from violence to normalcy that both peoples desperately need.
The coming months will reveal whether this ambitious initiative can overcome decades of mistrust and violence. For Singapore and the international community, supporting these efforts while learning from both successes and setbacks represents an investment in the rules-based international order that underpins global peace and prosperity.