It would be welcome news if Hamas had truly agreed to surrender its weapons as part of a proposed 20-point framework to end the war. Above all, it would offer hope to the people of Gaza, who have suffered under the terrorist group’s theocratic dictatorship.
According to media reports, a new initiative helped secure a breakthrough in negotiations between Hamas and the U.S.-backed Board of Peace over a proposed postwar framework that includes Hamas’s disarmament.
But there are good reasons for skepticism.
Hamas’s ideology makes genuine disarmament difficult to imagine. As the saying goes, “They love death far more than we love life.”
There are also practical reasons for caution. The reported direct negotiations involve Jared Kushner and former Gaza security chief Mohammed Dahlan, who now lives in exile in Abu Dhabi. Israel is not a direct participant, but it would ultimately have to decide whether the proposed framework meets its security requirements.
Nor is there much reason to place confidence in a proposed international stabilization force. So far, only a small Moroccan advance contingent has reportedly arrived, far short of the 10,000 personnel expected from multiple countries by the end of the year. Indonesia, which was expected to contribute 8,000 troops, has reportedly slowed its participation as regional tensions remain high.
Israel has made clear that it will remain in Gaza until Hamas gives up its weapons. That is the essential condition.
Hamas has lost the war. Its control has reportedly been reduced to roughly one-quarter of the Gaza Strip. Iranian and Qatari funding has diminished, and most of its senior leadership and many of the terrorists responsible for the rapes, murders and other unspeakable atrocities committed on Oct. 7, 2023, have been killed. The campaign against those who remain is still ongoing.
Hamas may believe it can continue to exert influence through the proposed technocratic Palestinian administration that would govern Gaza after the war. Such a government, however, would have little credibility unless it clearly rejects Hamas’s ideology, condemns the atrocities of Oct. 7 and demonstrates genuine independence from the terrorist organization.
Any so-called technocratic Gaza government would have to demonstrate authentic opposition to Hamas rather than serve as its civilian facade.
Hamas may believe it can retain influence by controlling the proposed technocratic Palestinian administration that would govern Gaza after the war. It may also hope to preserve its military capabilities through the extensive tunnel network that still exists beneath the Strip.
Israel, however, has learned the lessons of Oct. 7. Kushner understands this as well. Any agreement must be built on ironclad guarantees.
Israel cannot withdraw from Gaza until the threat posed by Hamas has been substantially eliminated. Even then, Gaza is likely to remain volatile for years to come.
For that reason, Israel has not yet signaled its acceptance of the reported framework. And if the timetable for Hamas’s disarmament is stretched over months or even years, there is a real danger that its weapons could instead be transferred to Judea and Samaria, where they would fuel a new wave of terrorist violence.
Only complete and verifiable disarmament can ensure that the mistakes of Oct. 7 are never repeated.
