Disarming Hamas complicates the Gaza agreement: An analysis of the path and risks

The ongoing negotiations regarding the situation in the Gaza Strip are marked by confusion and stagnation, particularly with the introduction of the "disarmament of Hamas" as a precondition or a pressing deadline, thus complicating the anticipated "Gaza Agreement." This issue is considered one of the most complex and sensitive points in the talks mediated by regional and international parties, and observers view it as a pressure tactic that could undermine diplomatic efforts aimed at achieving a ceasefire.

Context of the conflict and historical background

The issue of Palestinian factions' weapons in Gaza is not a recent development, but rather a central point of contention that has persisted for many years. Since Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, Israel has made "disarmament" a strategic objective in all its military campaigns, while Hamas considers its weapons its lifeline and the only guarantee against what it describes as aggression. In the ongoing war that began on October 7th, Israeli rhetoric has escalated, making the elimination of Hamas's military capabilities an explicit and irreversible goal. This is met with staunch rejection from Hamas, which insists on a complete cessation of hostilities and a full Israeli withdrawal before discussing any further details.

The complexities of the negotiation landscape

Talk of a disarmament deadline comes at a highly sensitive time, as the United States, Egypt, and Qatar seek a compromise formula to end the humanitarian suffering and ensure a prisoner exchange. However, the inclusion of disarmament as a binding deadline is viewed by political analysts as a negotiating tactic aimed at embarrassing the mediators and raising the stakes, or perhaps as a prelude to justifying continued military operations should the talks fail. This condition jeopardizes the "Gaza Agreement," as the Palestinian side considers it an unacceptable surrender, while the Israeli government views it as a security necessity to prevent the recurrence of similar attacks.

Expected regional and international impacts

The failure to reach an agreement due to the "disarmament" issue has serious repercussions that extend beyond the sector:

• On the local level: Continuing the war means exacerbating the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, increasing pressure on the crumbling infrastructure, and raising the number of civilian casualties.
• On a regional level: The political impasse could lead to an expansion of the conflict, with the potential for other fronts to become more involved in the confrontation, such as the northern front with Lebanon or tensions in the Red Sea, threatening the stability of the entire Middle East.
• On the international level: This intransigence puts the international community before its responsibilities, as popular and official pressures increase in Western capitals to impose a political solution, amid fears of the impact of the continuation of the war on the global economy and energy prices.

In conclusion, the path of the "Gaza Agreement" remains contingent on the flexibility of the parties and the ability of the mediators to unravel the "disarmament" knot and transform it from a disruptive pressure tactic into part of a comprehensive and sustainable political settlement that guarantees security and stability for all.