By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Hamas has stated it will not disarm until a sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital is established, rejecting a key Israeli demand for a ceasefire. This response follows reports attributed to US envoy Steve Witkoff suggesting Hamas was willing to lay down its weapons. The group’s statement comes amid stalled negotiations and pressure from Arab governments urging disarmament, especially after Western countries announced plans to recognize Palestine. Amidst these ongoing conflicts, the United Nations reports that at least 1,373 Palestinians have died seeking food since May, primarily near aid distribution sites.
Read the original article here
Hamas refuses to disarm until a Palestinian state is established, a stance that immediately complicates any path toward peace. The core issue at hand is whether the militant group will relinquish its weapons and cease its operations, a fundamental requirement for any functional, sovereign state to exist. The refusal to disarm, even if a Palestinian state is created, throws a wrench into the two-state solution, a long-sought resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This position inevitably raises questions about Hamas’s true intentions. Is the group genuinely committed to a peaceful resolution, or are their demands merely tactical maneuvers, a way to maintain power and control? Some observers believe that Hamas is primarily focused on its own survival and will manipulate circumstances to stay relevant. This includes potentially using the establishment of a Palestinian state as an opportunity to regroup, rearm, and continue its violent campaign. The question of what happens *after* statehood is critical: if Hamas disarms, would they simply cede power, or would they continue to be a powerful political and military force inside the new state?
The potential for a civil war immediately comes to mind. If a Palestinian state were formed today, and Hamas continued to operate as a parallel military force, a clash between Hamas and any Palestinian government could easily erupt. This internal conflict would destabilize the region, and undermine any chances for lasting peace, creating a humanitarian crisis on its own. It would be difficult for the new state to gain international recognition or to build a viable economy under these conditions.
It’s also worth considering the role of external actors. Hamas receives support from various countries, including Iran, which are likely to see the group’s continued existence as a means to exert influence in the region. The prospect of disarming would be anathema to such patrons. This is not a new concept: there has been funding of terrorism worldwide. This is an element in this stalemate.
The insistence on Jerusalem as the capital further complicates matters. Such a demand is a non-starter for many Israelis. The question of Jerusalem’s status is one of the most sensitive and contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the demands of Hamas could be seen as a way to push back any resolution.
The history of the conflict must also be considered. Palestinians have been offered statehood multiple times, but Hamas and other factions have often rejected these offers or undermined peace initiatives. The refusal to negotiate in good faith, the use of violence, and the rejection of compromises have contributed to the current impasse. Some observers feel Hamas has been emboldened by international support for Palestinian statehood, viewing it as a sign of weakness or a reward for violence.
Ultimately, the situation is a catch-22. Hamas refuses to disarm until a Palestinian state is established, but its continued existence as an armed group makes the establishment of that state extremely problematic. The international community must find a way to address this issue, pressure both sides, and create a path toward a peaceful resolution. But it won’t be easy.