On Thursday, Israeli officials asserted that Hamas will be disarmed as part of a US-sponsored peace initiative for Gaza. This statement follows comments from a senior Hamas leader suggesting a possible freeze on the group’s weapons but rejecting a complete disarmament, a demand included in a plan outlined by former President Donald Trump.
Since the establishment of a ceasefire on October 10, which brought a halt to the conflict ignited by Hamas’s deadly attack on Israel on October 7, the situation has remained precarious, with both Israel and Hamas frequently leveling accusations of ceasefire violations against one another.
Khaled Meshaal, a prominent figure within Hamas, expressed the group’s willingness to consider a weapon freeze during an interview with Al Jazeera. However, he firmly stated that total disarmament, as proposed in the peace plan, is unacceptable. He emphasized that their discussions with mediators revolve around providing guarantees against Israeli military actions rather than fulfilling disarmament demands.
In response, an Israeli government representative stated unequivocally that there would be no future for Hamas as outlined in the 20-point plan, asserting that the group will face disarmament and that Gaza will need to be demilitarized.
The proposed agreement encompasses three phases, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently indicating that he anticipates the second phase commencing soon. This phase would involve further withdrawals of Israeli troops from Gaza, replaced by an international stabilization force, contingent upon Hamas agreeing to disarm.
Despite this, Hamas remains opposed to relinquishing its arsenal. Meshaal characterized the concept of total disarmament as incompatible with the group’s resistance ethos, instead advocating for the idea of a weapons freeze or storage to prevent further military escalation from Gaza.
In the initial stage of the deal, Palestinian militants agreed to release remaining captives, which included live individuals and deceased, while Israel reciprocated by freeing approximately 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and returning the remains of several deceased Palestinians.
Meshaal conveyed openness to the deployment of international forces along Gaza’s border with Israel but firmly rejected the notion of their presence within Gaza itself, interpreting such a scenario as an occupation. He drew comparisons to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), suggesting that international forces could play a role in demarcating Gaza from what he termed “the occupation.”
He further asserted that mediators, alongside Arab and Islamic nations, could serve as “guarantors” against any escalations arising from Gaza, advocating for a pragmatic approach in negotiations with the US administration.
As discussions continue, the eyes of the international community remain fixed on the evolving situation, hoping for a resolution that will lead to lasting peace in the region.
