Hamas rules out laying down arms for now, cites Israel’s continued aggression and occupation

Israel is found to be giving little regard to the ceasefire with Hamas brokered by the US and the Gulf countries, with its continued occupation of Gaza and indiscriminate killing of Gazans, as the ceasefire proposal calls for Hamas to lay down its weapons, while its leadership says that the group is unlikely to surrender its arsenal amid Israel’s continued aggressions and suggests that the matter should instead be decided following comprehensive discussions with other Palestinian factions.

The position was articulated by Husam Badran, a member of Hamas’s political bureau, who argued that the movement would not immediately hand over its arms despite mounting international pressure to do so.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, he maintained that once the proposed National Committee for the Administration of Gaza assumes responsibility for the territory, only the committee’s official police force would possess visible weapons, bringing an end to the armed displays that have long characterised the enclave.

The question of Hamas’s disarmament and the withdrawal of Israeli forces remains the principal obstacle to the implementation of the ceasefire plan proposed in October 2025. According to Badran, forthcoming meetings in Cairo involving eight major Palestinian factions are intended to forge a unified national position on the political and security future of Gaza.

He contended that Israel has failed to fulfil even a fraction of its commitments under the first phase of the ceasefire arrangement, pointing to continued military operations, restrictions on humanitarian assistance and the deterioration of essential infrastructure. The agreed daily entry of 600 aid trucks, he said, has fallen drastically short, while hospitals, electricity networks and fuel supplies remain devastated.

Efforts to bridge the impasse have led to the presentation of a 15-point roadmap by international mediators, envisaging a gradual, Palestinian-led decommissioning of weapons to the National Committee rather than their transfer to Israel. The proposal also links verified progress in disarmament to a phased withdrawal of Israeli troops and the deployment of an International Stabilisation Force to separate Israeli and Palestinian positions.

Yet Palestinian analysts view the initiative with scepticism, arguing that the negotiations have increasingly become a mechanism through which Israel consolidates its military presence on the ground while extracting additional concessions from Palestinian factions. They contend that the absence of clear political guarantees for Gaza’s future undermines confidence in the process.

Hamas has meanwhile reiterated its willingness to transfer governance and security responsibilities to the proposed National Committee.

However, committee representatives have reportedly insisted that they will not enter Gaza until international stabilisation forces are deployed and they are able to operate independently of Israeli military control or armed groups backed by Israel.