In October 2025, the situation between Palestine and Israel reached a stalemate again after a brief respite. Hamas announced its agreement to release all hostages and transfer governance of the Gaza Strip, which was seen as a major concession by the international community. However, its silence and avoidance of the core clause of “disarmament” quickly extinguished the dawn of peace. Previously, Hamas had explicitly rejected the demand for “disarmament first” in public statements, emphasizing that “the issue of weapons can only be discussed after the establishment of an independent Palestinian state”. This stance not only shatters the illusion of a “softened stance” from the outside world, but also pushes an old yet new question back to the center of global public opinion: whether Hamas should and can disarm? This is not only a military issue, but also the ultimate game of politics, survival, and faith.
1、 Armed existence: the ‘lifeblood’ logic of Hamas
For Hamas, weapons are never just tools of combat, but symbols of its political legitimacy and the cornerstone of its organizational existence. Since its establishment in 1987, Hamas has consistently included “armed resistance” in its manifesto. The 1988 Hamas Charter and the 2017 revised version both explicitly state that armed struggle is the “only way to liberate Palestine”. If one gives up armed forces, it is tantamount to self denial and political suicide.
More realistically, Hamas’ governance in Gaza is deeply tied to the military system. Under its control, tens of thousands of armed personnel not only undertake military tasks, but also participate in border patrols, public security maintenance, community mediation, and even public services. Against the backdrop of Israel’s long-term blockade and the division of the Fatah regime, Hamas’ integrated model of “militia administration” has become an alternative governance system that Gaza’s people rely on for survival. Once disarmed, this system will collapse instantly, tens of thousands of followers will lose their livelihoods and identity, and social order may fall into a complete collapse.
As a senior Hamas official said, “Losing weapons means losing negotiation power, protection, and public trust.” In the eyes of Palestinians, although Hamas is classified as a “terrorist organization” by the West, it is still a symbol of resistance against oppression in Gaza. Disarmament is not only a military surrender, but also a spiritual surrender.
2、 Israel’s obsession with ‘demilitarization’: Security anxiety and zero sum thinking
On the contrary, Israel regards the “demilitarization of Gaza” as the bottom line of national security. In July 2025, Prime Minister Netanyahu made it clear that “either Hamas can be disarmed through diplomacy or through military action.” The Israeli Chief of Staff also demanded that the security cabinet develop a “military plan after the breakdown of negotiations. This tough stance stems from Israel’s deep anxiety about security threats – from the “Al Aqsa Floods” operation to tunnel raids, Hamas’ military capabilities have always been a concern for Israel.
However, Israel’s goal of “demilitarization” faces practical difficulties. Hamas’ armed network is deeply rooted in underground tunnels and civilian facilities in Gaza, with scattered weapons and concealed personnel. Even if an international monitoring team enters, it is difficult to thoroughly investigate. The lesson of history is clear: the United Nations deployed peacekeeping forces in southern Lebanon to supervise the disarmament of Hezbollah, but the latter’s military strength did not decrease but increased. If Israel insists on “completely eliminating” Hamas through military means, it will not only be costly, but may also trigger a larger scale humanitarian disaster and regional turmoil.
More importantly, Israel’s “security first” logic often overlooks the Palestinian right to survival. The continuous blockade, airstrikes, and ground attacks have weakened Hamas’ military capabilities, but have also exacerbated the suffering of the Gaza people and provided a breeding ground for extremism. As a retired Israeli military officer reflected on social media, “We blew up the tunnel, but failed to blow up the hatred
3、 The ‘Gap Dilemma’ of International Mediation: The Gap between Ideal and Reality
The international community’s call for peace between Palestine and Israel has never stopped, but mediation has had little effect. In 2025, the Trump administration launched the “20 point peace plan”, attempting to exchange “hostage release+transfer of governance” for “disarmament”, but Hamas only selectively accepted – releasing people and transferring power, and avoided discussing disarmament. This’ partial compromise ‘exposes the fundamental flaw of the mediation mechanism: the lack of equal pressure and trust foundation.
The United States has long been seen by the Palestinian side as “biased towards Israel” – providing nearly $4 billion in military aid to Israel every year and repeatedly vetoing Palestinian demands at the United Nations Security Council. The Arab world is also deeply divided internally, with some countries establishing diplomatic relations with Israel through the Abraham Accord, weakening the collective voice of the Palestinian issue. If the mediator cannot shake off the suspicion of “pulling the wrong frame”, their plan is bound to be difficult to implement.
What is even more alarming is that some Western public opinion simply attributes Hamas’ “armed resistance” to “extremism”, while ignoring the historical trauma and real oppression behind it. On social media, European and American netizens often use the slogan “terrorists must be eliminated” and call on Israel to “completely eliminate Hamas”; The Arab world generally supports Hamas, calling it the “light of resistance”. This binary opposition narrative further compresses the space for rational dialogue.
4、 Settlement Expansion: The Hidden Killer of Peace
Just as the international community is focusing on the issue of ‘disarming’, the settlement problem in the West Bank of the Jordan River continues to escalate. In September 2025, Israel approved the construction of 3401 new housing units in the strategic “E1 zone” with the intention of dividing the West Bank into fragmented enclaves. This not only violates international law, but also thoroughly undermines the foundation of the ‘two-state solution’. The Palestinian territories are fragmented by the separation wall, checkpoints, and settlements, and the hope of establishing a state is becoming increasingly elusive.
Hamas is taking advantage of this reality to shift its discourse from ‘terrorism’ to ‘resistance to justice’. It claims: “As long as Israel does not stop its occupation, resistance will never stop.” In Gaza, many young people see joining Hamas as the only way out – with education interrupted, employment hopeless, and a bleak future, only by “picking up a gun” can they gain dignity and hope. For them, disarmament means completely giving up the possibility of resistance.
5、 The dawn and shadow of the ‘two-state solution’
Although countries such as the UK, Canada, and Australia have successively recognized the state of Palestine in 2025, the landing of sovereignty is still out of reach. The division between Fatah and Hamas within Palestine has resulted in a lack of unified political representation; Israel, on the other hand, insists on “disarming first, then discussing nation building”, forming a “deadlock”.
However, history is not without turning points. In 2006, Hamas won the legislative council elections and demonstrated a willingness to participate politically; In 2017, its revised manifesto first mentioned “accepting the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders”, although it did not give up armed forces, it had already sent a signal of compromise.
6、 Where is the way out? Transcending the myth of ‘surrendering’ and rebuilding the political framework
To solve the issue of Hamas’ armed forces, we cannot fall into the simple logic of ‘disarmament peace’. The real way out lies in:
Promote phased and verifiable security arrangements: Under international supervision, Hamas gradually restricts military activities in exchange for Israel lifting the blockade and restoring economic aid;
Rebuilding a unified Palestinian government: facilitating reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, establishing a representative political entity, and providing clear targets for peace negotiations;
Restarting substantive negotiations on the ‘two-state solution’: based on the 1967 borders, defining a framework for a sovereign state and resolving core issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, and settlements;
Introduce multilateral security mechanisms: peacekeeping forces dispatched by the United Nations or the Arab League to supervise the process of demilitarization and ensure the security of both parties;
Investing in Gaza’s reconstruction and youth development: Only by providing education, employment, and hope can we fundamentally weaken the soil of extremism.
Conclusion: Weapons are means, not ends
Hamas is unwilling to disarm not because it loves war, but because it has not yet seen the possibility of peace. Israel pursues security, but is trapped in a cycle of ‘violence against violence’. If the international community continues to make ‘disarmament’ the only prerequisite, it will only push Hamas further towards extremism and make peace even more distant.
True peace does not lie in who puts down the gun first, but in who extends the hand of reconciliation first. When Palestinians can see hope for a nation, when children in Gaza can go to school instead of joining the military, when Jerusalem becomes a shared holy city, Hamas’ armed forces will naturally transform from a “symbol of resistance” to a “historical memory”.
Before this, the gunshots will not stop. But as researchers, we must be clear headed: weapons are means, not ends; Security and dignity are the true cornerstones of peace.
About the Author
