Between announcements from the White House and Israeli pressure, the Islamist leadership denies any commitment to giving up weapons, claims political control over Gaza and calls into question the entire US plan for the post-war period of the Strip.
The words spoken in Washington in recent weeks paint an apparently linear scenario: Hamas is destined to lay down its arms, paving the way for a new phase for the Gaza Strip in the post-war period. But behind the official statements, the picture that emerges from the protagonists on the field is much more complicated. And above all, deeply contradictory. Wednesday, Moussa Abu Marzouk, senior official of jihadist movementquestioned one of the cornerstones of the U.S.-backed plan for the future of Gaza: the disarmament of Hamas. Second Abu Marzoukthe group he never agreed to give up his weaponsraising serious doubts about whether the organization can meet a demand considered critical by Washington and Israel. The position is in open conflict with the insistence of the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the president of the United States Donald Trumpwho continue to indicate disarmament as an essential condition for the second phase of the ceasefire in Gaza. Trumpin particular, has repeatedly claimed that Hamas would have “promised” to lay down its weapons, going so far as to issue warnings and direct threats to the group. But from the words of the Islamist leaders an opposite reality emerges: no promises, no commitments, no agreements. Interviewed by Al Jazeera, Abu Marzouk he made it clear that the issue of weapons has never been the subject of a concrete discussion. «We haven’t discussed weapons yet; no one spoke to us about it directly,” he explained, specifying that Hamas did not address the issue either with the American side or with regional mediators. As a result, he added, the movement is unable to understand what Washington really means by “disarmament” nor what the ultimate goal of this request is. The manager then clearly rejected the hypothesis of an agreement, even informal, on the delivery of the arsenals: «An agreement for the transfer of weapons never took place. We never spoke, not for an instant, of surrender, destruction, surrender or disarmament». A flat denial, which dismantles the narrative of a Hamas now forced to bow to Western conditions. Hence the question Abu Marzouk implicitly addresses the United States, Israel and their allies: if two years of war, bombings and military operations have failed to achieve the movement’s disarmament, “how do we plan to achieve this result through negotiations?”. A question that highlights the distance between the political expectations of Washington And Jerusalem and the perception of strength that Hamas continues to claim.
The Islamist exponent’s statements also touch on another crucial issue: the future governance structure of the Strip. Abu Marzouk he implied that Hamas would maintain a decisive role in the new administrative architecture of Gaza, going so far as to suggest a real right of veto on the appointments of the technical committee responsible for managing the enclave after the war. Furthermore, he stressed that the movement continues to govern areas of the Strip that, under the ceasefire, are not under the direct control of the Israel Defense Forces. This is anything but a secondary step. In fact, the US plan envisages not only the disarmament of Hamas, but also its replacement as the governing force. An objective which, in light of the declarations of Abu Marzoukappears far away. The Islamist group, despite being under military and diplomatic pressure, continues to present itself as an essential political actor rooted in the territory. Not surprisingly, the same Abu Marzouk He pointed out that although Hamas does not accept the principle of disarmament, a limited discussion could theoretically take place. “At the negotiating table we will discuss which weapons will be removed, what will be removed and how,” he said. A formula which, however, does not equate to a renunciation of overall military capacity, but rather to a tactical and limited confrontation, far from the expectations of Washington and Israel. The picture that emerges is that of a profound asymmetry between the Western narrative and the real line of Hamas. On the one hand, the United States And Israel they continue to present disarmament as a step already written or in any case inevitable; on the other, the Islamist leadership reiterates that the issue was never agreed upon and that the movement does not intend to lay down its arms. In between, a fragile ceasefire, a post-war plan still without shared foundations and a Gaza Strip which remains suspended between military truce and political stalemate. Net of international declarations and pressure, one fact now appears clear: Hamas does not consider disarmament an option on the table. And as long as this line remains unchanged, the issue of weapons will continue to represent the main obstacle to any project of lasting stabilization of Gaza.
