What's Next After Hamas Rejects Disarmament Plan? Will War Return to Gaza?

The future of weapons in the Gaza Strip has ignited a fierce debate, pitting political calculations against the harsh realities faced by its residents. This escalating tension follows Hamas's unequivocal rejection of a disarmament plan, a move articulated by Abu Obaida, spokesperson for the group's military wing. He dismissed the proposal, presented through mediators, as a "dangerous Israeli attempt to impose what it failed to achieve militarily," signaling a potential return to the devastating conflict that has plagued the region. International and Israeli efforts to broker a resolution have intensified, yet remain fraught with challenges. A Hamas delegation engaged in several days of talks in Cairo with mediators, discussing the transition to the second phase of a ceasefire agreement and the mechanisms for weapon surrender, but no consensus was reached. Israeli media reports have indicated a specific deadline for Hamas and other factions to disarm. This push for disarmament forms a central pillar of the Mladenov plan, announced in the UN Security Council in late March, which outlines a five-phase, eight-month process starting with a national committee assuming administrative and security control, followed by Hamas disarming, a gradual Israeli withdrawal, and comprehensive reconstruction. The New York Times also reported an ultimatum from the International Peace Council, chaired by Donald Trump, demanding Hamas finalize a disarmament deal by mid-April as part of the broader October agreement to solidify a temporary truce. Hamas, however, maintains its steadfast position, with spokesperson Hazem Qassem asserting the movement's commitment to the ceasefire while vehemently rejecting discussions on the "resistance weapons" file before Israel fully and precisely implements all provisions of the first phase. Qassem outlined Hamas's conditions for fostering a "positive ground" for the next phase, which include urgent humanitarian aid, mobile homes and tents for the displaced, the commencement of actual reconstruction, the completion of agreed Israeli withdrawals, the opening of the Rafah border crossing, and the handover of Gaza's administration to a national committee. He further warned against "continued Israeli violations," such as ongoing killings and the shifting of the "yellow line" westward, deeming it illogical to bypass these transgressions and jump directly to second-phase discussions. Amidst these high-stakes political maneuvers, the voices of Gaza's residents offer a poignant reminder of the human cost. Tariq Abu Diya, a resident of the Rimal neighborhood, expressed support for "the resistance" but also acknowledged that the horrors of war compel a "consideration of the higher interest and the surrender of weapons." He believes any disarmament decision must emerge from a comprehensive national consensus, stating that "wars will continue to pursue Palestinians as long as the word is scattered... and the strength of the people lies not in weapons alone, but in their national unity and unified decision." Similarly, Shaima Abu Ajwa, displaced from Shujaiya, articulated the primary concern of many: "What do we have to do with weapons, whether they surrender them or not, it's irrelevant to us. What we want now is to return to our homes, even if they are destroyed, and what we fear is the return of war again and being forced to displace." Israeli analysts, such as Eli Nissan, view the resumption of military operations against Hamas as a plausible option, coordinated with the United States, should the movement fail to disarm or continue its control over Gaza. Nissan emphasized that Hamas cannot persist in its governance, arming, and weapons smuggling with the intent of initiating another conflict with Israel. Meanwhile, Moataz Ahmedin Khalil, former Egyptian representative to the UN, revealed that international envoy Nikolay Mladenov exerted pressure for the disarmament plan, which Khalil described as "fully representing the Israeli position." Khalil clarified that Abu Obaida's public rejection followed private refusals by Hamas's political wing in closed negotiation rooms, indicating a unified stance and a coordinated division of roles rather than internal discord. Dr. Fawaz Gerges, Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics, offers a critical perspective, suggesting that the war in Gaza has not truly ceased but has rather undergone a tactical shift to "de-escalation." Gerges firmly dismisses the likelihood of Hamas surrendering its weapons, explaining that the movement fully understands that such an act would leave them utterly vulnerable to Israeli forces. This fundamental disagreement over disarmament, coupled with the deep-seated mistrust and the divergent priorities of the involved parties, leaves the path to a lasting peace in Gaza shrouded in uncertainty, with the specter of renewed conflict ever-present.