Israel and Hamas appear to have made tentative strides toward a ceasefire deal, ostensibly backed by the United States. However, the negotiations are rife with contentious issues, primarily revolving around the fate of Hamas’s weapons. Israel’s demands for Hamas to disarm completely, relinquish governance of Gaza, and dissolve itself as an organization not only highlight a gross imbalance of power but also reveal the systemic inequalities underlying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
From the outset, Israel has maintained that the cessation of its two-year war on Gaza hinges on Hamas surrendering all its arms. This unilateral prerequisite does not simply aim to end hostilities; it seeks to dismantle the very identity of Palestinian resistance. On the other hand, while Hamas has publicly rejected the notion of disarmament, reports suggest that behind closed doors, there is a willingness to consider a limited decommissioning of its offensive weapons. This nuanced shift in Hamas’s stance is critical, yet it underscores the broader dilemma facing Palestinian factions: the right to resist occupation versus the pressures of international diplomacy.
Negotiations over Hamas’s arsenal could serve as a litmus test for the sustainability of the ceasefire itself. Analysts warn that diverging expectations concerning disarmament could lead Israel to renew its genocidal campaign against an already beleaguered civilian population. International humanitarian law affirms the right of armed groups to resist occupying powers, yet this fundamental principle is routinely ignored by Israel and its Western allies, who consistently demand disarmament as a precondition for peace talks. This convoluted framework was evident during the Oslo Accords of the 1990s and remains a significant barrier to genuine progress.
Experts like Azmi Keshawi, a Palestinian researcher, assert that while Hamas may be inclined to surrender certain offensive weapons, it is unlikely to relinquish its small arms or its strategically crucial tunnel network. The crux of the matter is that disarmament will only be considered in a context where a Palestinian leadership could ensure protection from ongoing Israeli aggression—something that remains a distant reality under the current occupation.
Hamas was not operating in isolation before Israel’s onslaught; it was the largest among several armed factions in Gaza, including the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The brutal bombardment has likely degraded the military capabilities of these groups, but it has not extinguished the desire for resistance. With Israel’s systematic destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure and the emergence of local gangs—propped up by Israeli forces to exploit the humanitarian crisis—there is a palpable fear among Palestinians that disbanding Hamas could leave a dangerous power vacuum.
Analysts like Taghreed Khodary emphasize that Hamas’s military presence serves a dual purpose: it provides a means of resistance against external aggression while also maintaining internal security. The narrative that Hamas must be expelled is not only misleading but also ignores the complex realities of Gazan society, which has been subjected to years of siege and violence. The very existence of Hamas, in the eyes of many Palestinians, represents a form of resistance and resilience against an oppressive regime.
The question of disarmament is further complicated by international dynamics. Should an interim security force be established to oversee a partial decommissioning of Hamas’s weapons, it is imperative that its mandate does not serve the interests of Israeli state objectives. The risk remains that Western powers, in their quest for stability, may inadvertently endorse frameworks that undermine Palestinian sovereignty and rights.
Additionally, the notion of “defeating” Hamas is a dangerous fallacy. As Keshawi points out, Hamas is not merely a political entity but an idea—a symbol of resistance that resonates deeply within the collective consciousness of Palestinians and across the Arab world. The brutal war waged by Israel has only galvanized this sentiment, leading to a potential recruitment of disenfranchised youth into its ranks. Thus, any attempts to eradicate Hamas must confront the reality that it thrives on the injustices and inequalities perpetuated by the ongoing occupation.
The sustainability of any ceasefire is predicated not solely on Hamas’s willingness to disarm but on the ability of global leaders—especially in the West—to hold Israel accountable for its actions. If the narrative shifts to one where Hamas must be fully demilitarized before any substantive progress can be made toward ending the occupation, it risks becoming yet another pretext for the continuation of violence and oppression.
In this critical juncture, it is clear that peace cannot be brokered through the disarmament of one side while systemic injustices persist. A genuine path toward reconciliation must center on addressing the root causes of conflict, recognizing the rights of Palestinians to self-determination, and ensuring that all parties are held accountable for their actions. The question is not whether Hamas will hand over its weapons, but whether the world will acknowledge and rectify the deep-seated inequalities that fuel the conflict.
This article highlights the importance of OR CONTINUED OCCUPATION.
