Mediators continue to exert relentless efforts to reinstate the ceasefire that collapsed on 19 March. Despite several attempts to salvage the agreement and extend the initial phase based on the proposal put forward by US Envoy Steve Witkoff, the absence of genuine political will among the concerned parties has caused negotiations to regress, particularly after Hamas rejected Witkoff’s final version of the proposal, submitting amendments that effectively stripped it of substance.
Israel is rejecting any arrangement because it would destabilise its governing coalition, potentially prompting the far-right Otzma Yehudit Party, led by Itamar Ben-Gvir, to irrevocably withdraw. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich may also exit the coalition, decreasing the number of seats the governing coalition holds in the Knesset and jeopardising the survival of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government – unless he can secure a fallback alliance from within the opposition, which he does not trust.
The new arrangement entailed the gradual release of the eight hostages, at a rate of one per day over the course of one week. In parallel, Israel was to suspend its aerial bombardment and facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza with the commencement of the handover process, in addition to releasing a number of Palestinian detainees from Israeli prisons.
However, on 15 April, Israel introduced a new proposal, which it submitted to the mediators in Cairo and Doha.
The Israeli proposal demanded the disarmament of Hamas and the reduction of the truce period from 70 to 45 days. The proposal also called for the redeployment rather than a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip.
The Israeli proposal exposes its intention not to stop the war before eliminating Hamas completely, even if the way to achieve this is by reoccupying Gaza. The proposal appears to consolidate demands that touch on what Hamas considers red lines. Indeed, Hamas’ response was that the proposal transgressed all its core boundaries. Chief among these is the demand for complete disarmament, a condition categorically rejected by Hamas and one it refuses to discuss outside a comprehensive framework that includes a long-term truce of up to a decade.
Furthermore, the Israeli proposal’s rejection of a full withdrawal from Gaza signals the intent to revert to the pre-2005 status quo, which Hamas finds equally unacceptable and incompatible with the way the reality on the ground has developed since that time. In addition, the proposal contains no explicit commitment to ending the war, implying that Hamas would be expected to release the hostages without securing any of its key demands.
The only alternative becomes the resumption of the war and Israel’s possible ability to free its hostages before they are killed due to Israeli bombardment of the Strip. It should be noted Israel did manage to free a number of hostages during an operation it conducted in the Strip last year.
The most controversial point in Israel’s proposal is disarming Hamas. However, the reality on the ground require a more pragmatic approach to this matter. It has become evident that the widespread destruction in the Gaza Strip occurred despite Hamas retaining its weapons, which have practically no effect before the overwhelming military power of the Israeli Army, particularly its air force. Throughout the war, Hamas, with what arms it possesses, was unable to inflict a fraction of the destruction that Tel Aviv has inflicted on Gaza, let alone pose a serious threat to the heart of Israel.
In fact, as Netanyahu posted on X, Israel was able to intercept 99 per cent of the rockets launched from Gaza. This raises questions about the actual strength of Hamas’ remaining arsenal and the rationale behind fears of its disarmament.
Moreover, media reports released on Sunday indicated that the Qassam Brigades are attempting to recruit thousands of new fighters, most of whom reportedly lack specialisation. The reports added that the Qassam Brigades have begun recycling remnants of Israeli missiles to manufacture new ones, which indicates that the group does not have a significant stockpile of weaponry. Additionally, Hamas is facing a serious financial crisis after its funding sources were severed and Israel targeted the group’s financial leadership following the collapse of the truce in March.
Hamas’ refusal to disarm can be interpreted as a rejection of a future scenario in which the movement would be stripped of all weapons, leaving the Israeli occupation unopposed by any meaningful resistance. This interpretation is both logical and alarming, and it must be assessed through humanitarian, legal, and international lenses.
In principle, any occupation must be met with resistance, even if only in a deterrent capacity. Israel, which has consistently violated international agreements and cannot be regarded as a trustworthy actor, must not be rewarded with a guarantee that Palestinian resistance – beyond Hamas – will be left without deterrent capabilities.
An important reminder is the concept that only a state should monopolise the use of weapons. The phenomenon of armed groups operating independently must diminish, especially as experience in the region has shown that such groups are often unable to defend themselves, as seen with Hizbullah in Southern Lebanon.
Therefore, the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state equipped with the legitimate right to possess arms, offers a legally and internationally acceptable path forward. Otherwise, the Gaza war will remain a recurring tragedy, inevitably reproduced, if Palestinian resistance continues to be confined to Hamas.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 24 April, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: