A senior Hamas official warned on 12 February that Palestinian armed groups will not hand over their weapons while Israeli strikes continue, setting up a direct clash with Israeli and US plans to demilitarize Gaza as part of a second-phase settlement. Mahmoud Mardawi framed the refusal as conditional: weapons would be transferred only to a unified Palestinian state after statehood is achieved, and not to any interim arrangement that leaves fighters vulnerable.
Hamas spokesman Hazim Qasim said the movement had not received a complete proposal on the weapons issue from mediators, accusing Israel of using the weapons question to justify delays to a deeper ceasefire. The allegation exposes a core stumbling block: for Hamas, arms are a bargaining chip and a coercive guarantee; for Israel and many international actors, disarmament is a precondition for reconstruction and long-term security.
Washington’s “20-point plan,” announced in January, envisions a shift from an initial ceasefire toward comprehensive demilitarization, technocratic governance and reconstruction in Gaza. The United States describes the second phase as centring on removing ‘‘unauthorised’’ armed groups and rebuilding civilian life, but has left the mechanics — who disarms whom, how and when — vague and politically explosive.
Israeli media and military sources report that the Israel Defense Forces are drafting plans for a renewed offensive aimed explicitly at ‘‘forcibly disarming’’ Hamas, a prospect that would unravel the lull achieved by the first-phase ceasefire. Gaza’s health authorities say Israeli operations since that first-phase deal took effect have already caused 591 deaths and 1,578 injuries, underlining the human toll that any return to large-scale fighting would inflict.
The impasse matters because disarmament is not simply a technical step but a political one: transferring weapons to a central authority presumes a sovereign Palestinian state or a trusted interim administration, neither of which exists. Without a realistic mechanism for security governance that guarantees both Israeli safety and Palestinian sovereignty, the risk is a return to armed confrontation that will delay reconstruction, complicate international aid and deepen regional instability.