Disarmament is already a farce.
The so-called “peace deal” was really the same old hostages-for-terrorists deal accompanied by a partial Israeli withdrawal and Hamas takeover. There’s no plan, as JD Vance already admitted, for an actual disarmament of Hamas. That’s a job that some Muslim countries are possibly supposed to do. The same ones that support Hamas.
Meanwhile Bishara A. Bahbah, Steve Witkoff’s “Palestinian” adviser, claims that Hamas only has to give up its “heavy weapons.”
Bahbah, a former adviser to Yasser Arafat with ties to the PLO, had previously blasted “the bigotry of a large number of politicians, particularly Republicans, toward Islam, the Syrian refugees and the Sharia law.”
After Oct. 7, Bahbah decided he was a Republican and formed Arab Americans for Trump. This was part of a larger Arab and Muslim trend of pressuring Dems to turn on Israel. And it worked pretty well. Then Bahbah got angry at Trump and rebranded the group as Arab Americans for Peace.
Despite that, Witkoff brought in Bahbah as a “mediator” who can talk to Hamas. What Bahbah actually puts out there is hard to distinguish from Hamas propaganda. But it may be very revealing.
Mr. Bahbah, one of the key points in the agreement is that Hamas must disarm. However, Hamas has repeatedly stated that it is not willing to do so. Is there a possibility that they will not comply with this condition? Do you have any insight into whether Hamas is prepared to disarm? Bahbah: As I mentioned, part of our discussions focused on the definition of disarmament. Does disarmament mean only handing over heavy weapons? Does it mean not developing or smuggling weapons in the future? Does it allow for individuals to retain small arms for self-defense? The American interpretation had been that if Hamas handed over its heavy weapons to an Arab-Palestinian side and promised not to develop or smuggle new ones, it would be considered disarmed. As for individual weapons—the ability for people to defend themselves in case of an attack—this was acceptable under the American definition.
-----
Under this definition, Hamas would keep most of its arsenal that it used on Oct. 7, and most of its military forces.
What are heavy weapons? Depends on which definition you use. Hamas doesn’t have most kinds of “heavy weapons” anyway. RPGs may or may not fall in that category. Missiles will presumably be classified as heavy weapons. Drones may not be.
Hamas will interpret the category as it pleases, and so will the Egyptians or anyone else tasked with disarming the terror group.
Even any “heavy weapons” will be handed over, according to Bahbah, to a “security force” that will include Hamas.
Bahbah claimed that “Israel is trying to convince the U.S. to change the wording of the next phase, and they are using Hamas’s possession of weapons as an excuse. Hamas will eventually have to hand over its heavy weapons to Arab-Islamic-Palestinian forces.”
And those forces will include Hamas.
“It is possible that Hamas activists will integrate in the future into the Palestinian security forces. Israel and the U.S. will have to accept this, because there will be supervision over them and a responsible authority, and they will integrate into the Palestinian security force,” Bahbah claimed.
Much as I predicted, Hamas will hand over its “heavy weapons” to the “security forces” who are also Hamas.
And, best of all, we may be paying for the whole farce.
The 20-point “peace plan” proposes “an internationally funded buy back and reintegration program.”
So the Hamas terrorist hands over the guns to the Hamas police officer, and we’ll be paying for it.
As I’ve been warning all along, this agreement is a facade in which a fake “technocratic” government is used as a shield for Hamas to remain in power, followed by a recognition of terrorist statehood because the “technocratic” government technically isn’t Hamas. In reality however, it’s Hamas.
Both America and Israel need to drop this “deal” as soon as possible.
Originally published by FrontPage Magazine.
