Adam Boehler is deluded: Hamas will never disarm or abandon Gaza

Adam Boehler, the U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, has reportedly suggested that Hamas could be persuaded to lay down its arms and exit Gaza’s political landscape as part of a long-term truce. This notion, floated amid his unprecedented direct talks with the group, reflects a troubling disconnect from reality.

Let’s start with the obvious. Hamas isn’t a transient street gang that can be bribed or browbeaten into dissolution. It’s a deeply entrenched Islamist movement, born in 1987 out of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, with a charter that explicitly calls for Israel’s destruction.

For nearly four decades, it has weathered Israeli military campaigns, internal Palestinian rivalries, and international isolation, emerging each time with its core intact. Since seizing Gaza in a bloody 2007 coup against the Palestinian Authority, Hamas has built a quasi-state complete with tunnels, rockets, and a propaganda machine that rivals any in the region. To think it would abandon this hard-won fiefdom—its only real base of power—because an American envoy asks nicely is to misunderstand its very DNA.

Boehler’s apparent faith hinges on a seductive but flimsy premise: that Hamas, battered by war and facing a shifting geopolitical landscape, might see disarmament as a rational exit strategy. He’s hinted at a deal where the group releases hostages, disarms, and steps aside, allowing the U.S. and allies to rebuild Gaza into something resembling a demilitarized zone. In exchange, Hamas gets a five- to ten-year truce—a timeout, not a surrender. This sounds like a diplomat’s daydream, but it ignores the incentives that keep Hamas ticking. Disarmament would strip it of its military leverage, the one thing that distinguishes it from Fatah and justifies its claim to lead the Palestinian resistance. Without weapons, Hamas is just another political faction, vulnerable to both Israel and its own people, many of whom are weary of its governance failures.

Consider the evidence. After the October 7, 2023, attack that killed over 1,200 Israelis and sparked a devastating war, Hamas didn’t collapse under Israel’s retaliation, which has claimed tens of thousands of Palestinian lives. Instead, it adapted, clinging to hostages as bargaining chips and leveraging its survival to project defiance.

Its leaders, whether in Gaza’s tunnels or Qatar’s hotels, have consistently rejected any deal that doesn’t include a full Israeli withdrawal and a path to power retention. Even as Gaza lies in rubble, Hamas frames itself as the last bastion of armed struggle—a narrative that resonates with enough Palestinians to keep it relevant. Why would it trade that for a promise of reconstruction it can’t control?

Boehler’s optimism also overlooks the regional chessboard. Iran, Hamas’s primary backer, has no interest in a disarmed proxy; a weakened Hamas undermines Tehran’s “Axis of Resistance” against Israel and the U.S. Qatar and Turkey, meanwhile, host Hamas’s political wing not out of charity but as a strategic investment.

They’d balk at a plan that neuters their influence in Gaza. And Israel? Its government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu and hardliners like Bezalel Smotrich, has made clear that Hamas’s total defeat—not its negotiated exit—is the goal. Boehler’s talks have already sparked Israeli backlash, with officials like Ron Dermer reportedly furious at the lack of coordination. Jerusalem isn’t signing off on a truce that leaves Hamas’s ideology intact, even if its guns fall silent.

Then there’s the human element Boehler seems to misjudge. He’s spoken of finding “human elements” in Hamas negotiators, as if empathy or reason might sway them. This is a group that executed a meticulously planned massacre, livestreamed atrocities, and still holds dozens of hostages in hellish conditions. Its leaders, from the late Yahya Sinwar to the Doha-based politburo, aren’t misunderstood pragmatists—they’re ideologues who’ve staked their legitimacy on perpetual conflict. To them, disarming isn’t a compromise; it’s surrender, a betrayal of the martyrs they lionize.

Boehler’s delusion isn’t just naive—it’s dangerous. By dangling this fantasy, he risks legitimizing Hamas without extracting real concessions, undermining Israel’s position, and raising false hopes among hostage families desperate for resolution. The Trump administration’s muscle—think “hell to pay” threats—might force short-term compliance, but Hamas has survived worse. It’ll hunker down, wait out the pressure, and rearm when the spotlight fades, as it has for decades.

The hard truth is this: Hamas won’t disarm or leave Gaza unless it’s annihilated or displaced by force—outcomes Boehler’s diplomacy can’t achieve. Anything less, and it’ll bide its time, claiming victory in survival. Boehler may see a path to peace in his talks, but he’s walking a mirage. Hamas knows better.