In the midst of political efforts and regional and international mediations to stop the genocide in Gaza, a new initiative was presented by the Egyptian mediator to the Hamas movement. This initiative included provisions related to a ceasefire, prisoner exchange, and the entry of humanitarian assistance. However, the surprising element that sparked widespread controversy was the inclusion of a clear condition stipulating the disarmament of the Palestinian resistance. This was deemed by Hamas and many political, media, and Arab voices as a grave transgression and an attempt to impose surrender under the guise of a truce.

This proposal has provoked angry and discontent reactions from various levels, considering that weaponry is not merely a tool of combat, but a symbol of a people's dignity, a shield that protects them from displacement and extermination, and a condition for their survival on

Read also: Resistance Weapon... A Power Equation at the heart of Negotiation

In this context, we will outline in the following lines the most prominent positions and comments that addressed this proposal, highlighting its dangers and the firm rejection it has received from various factions supporting the option of resistance.

A leader in the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) revealed to Al Jazeera that the movement received a proposal through the Egyptian mediator that includes the release of half of the Israeli captives during the first week of the agreement, in exchange for a temporary ceasefire lasting 45 days, during which food and shelter materials would be allowed to enter.

The proposal stipulates the release of all prisoners—both alive and deceased—by the end of the forty-fifth day, as a condition for extending the ceasefire and continuing the flow of aid.

The negotiating delegation for "Hamas," according to the leader, was surprised to find that the proposal contained a clear clause requiring the disarmament of the resistance. He pointed out that Cairo informed the movement that a final agreement to end the war could not be reached without entering into direct negotiations regarding disarmament.

The leader affirmed that the movement categorically rejected this condition, considering that the starting point of any agreement should be the cessation of aggression and the withdrawal of the occupation, not touching the weapons of resistance, which he described as an "inherent right that is non-negotiable and a cornerstone of defending the Palestinian people.

Angry reactions and legitimate questions.

This development has provoked widespread reactions, and political analyst Yasser Al-Zaatarah commented, questioning: Is it reasonable for a proposal or initiative to lack any discussion about disarmament, only to suddenly appear in the Egyptian proposal? He added that Hamas’s rejection of the proposal was natural, especially given the continued Zionist aggression in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, and Lebanon, as well as Netanyahu's threats even against the Egyptian army itself. Al-Zaatarah asked: What greater betrayal is there than for the Arab mediator to offer such a gift to the enemy without any guarantee of a complete withdrawal?

On his part, writer Said Ziyad described the weapon of resistance as a "sacred right," emphasizing that it has received national consensus that is no less than issues of land, return, and Jerusalem. He added: Any rational Egyptian military officer will realize that Gaza represents a security barrier for Egypt, and its people are the front line of its defense.

He asked bitterly: Do you realize that disarming "Hamas" is a direct threat to Egyptian national security, and that this weapon is the dam that prevents mass displacement?

The Palestinian activist Khaled Safi expressed his rejection of the proposal, saying: "To ask Gaza to disarm is like asking the heart to give up its pulse, or the land to abandon its roots." He added: "The weapon of resistance is the wall that broke the occupation's plan to turn Gaza into a new catastrophe, and it is what Gaza has endured with despite hunger and siege.

Safi confirmed that disarmament today is not a negotiation step, but rather an attempt to eliminate what remains of Palestine, emphasizing that the rifle is no longer an option but a condition for survival.

In a comment, researcher Said Al-Haj wrote: "What weapon is intended to be removed? F-35 fighters, an aircraft carrier, nuclear missiles?! While the resistance that defends its people is demanded to give up simple weapons, the occupation continues its aggression armed with the latest produced by the arsenals of the West.

Read also: Non-Negotiable Defiance: Gaza’s Resistance Through a Legal Lens

Disarmament experiments and their catastrophic results

Qatari writer Jaber Al-Harmi pointed to two contemporary experiences that represent important lessons in the disarmament file, stating: The first one dates back to after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Europeans and Americans convinced Ukraine, which had a huge nuclear arsenal, that protection does not come from weapons, but from international agreements and treaties. Consequently, Ukraine's nuclear weapons were indeed dismantled, only to later find itself begging Europe for protection, while U.S. President Donald Trump publicly humiliates its president.

The speaker continued: As for the second point, it is the "Taliban" movement in Afghanistan, when the United States tried to impose disarmament as a fundamental condition for any negotiations. However, the "Taliban" completely rejected this proposal and did not engage in any negotiations under this title. The result was that Washington, despite its superiority, was forced to sit at the negotiating table with the armed "Taliban," where they clearly addressed them: what compelled you to negotiate with us was nothing but our weapons.

In turn, Palestinian activist Bilal Rayan said that Hamas's rejection of the Egyptian proposal came after the shock of including the disarmament condition, considering that this clause does not lead to a ceasefire but rather to a systematic genocide being carried out with Arab and international sponsorship.

He indicated that disarmament may be followed by a demand for the surrender and trial of fighters, dismantling the organizational structure of the resistance, and imposing a stifling oversight system that rewrites the political and social life in a way that ensures the end of the idea of resistance.

Ryan recalled scenes from recent history, affirming that disarmament experiences did not lead to security but rather to massacres. The departure of the fighters of the Palestine Liberation Organization from Beirut in 1982 did not prevent the Sabra and Shatila massacre, and the surrender of weapons in Srebrenica in 1995 did not protect civilians; instead, it resulted in a horrific massacre that claimed the lives of more than 8,000 Muslims.

Ryan concluded by stating that "Hamas" sees these proposals as an attempt to impose surrender under the guise of mediation, and that they are an extension of the American-Israeli vision aimed at crushing resistance and imposing a new reality in Gaza by force.

Read the article in Arabic