US Plan to Disarm Hamas in Gaza Sparks Outcry

A proposed U.S. Plan to disarm Hamas in the Gaza Strip has sparked debate across Palestinian and Arab social media platforms, with criticism focusing on its terms and timing, particularly its connection to reconstruction efforts. The development underscores the complex challenges facing regional stability as efforts to address the aftermath of conflict continue.

According to officials and sources familiar with a draft plan for the Gaza Strip, the United States is considering a framework that would allow Hamas to retain some light weaponry, at least initially, in exchange for surrendering arms capable of striking Israel.

The Recent York Times reported that a team led by Jared Kushner, son-in-law of former President Donald Trump, including U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and former UN official Nikolay Mladenov, intends to share the document with Hamas within weeks.

Questions Regarding Reconstruction and Disarmament

Following the newspaper’s initial publication of the plan’s details, comments flooded social media, with many questioning how a besieged force could be asked to disarm before seeing any prospect of a decent life. They also questioned whether linking reconstruction to disarmament reflected a genuine concern for peace or a desire to reshape the balance of power in the region without addressing the root causes of the conflict – namely, occupation, siege, and ongoing displacement.

Critics argued that conditioning reconstruction on surrendering weapons does not reflect a commitment to peace, but rather a desire to re-engineer the regional power dynamic without addressing the underlying issues of occupation, siege, and continued displacement.

Several commentators pointed out that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who they described as adept at “buying time,” is pushing the second phase of any potential settlement toward stalemate, as he realizes that any real progress would create internal challenges for his governing coalition and potentially embarrass him before a public accustomed to rhetoric of strength, and violence.

On the American side, some social media users suggested that Trump prefers a “deal” that can be marketed with flashy headlines, even if it lacks justice or sustainability.

Hamas’s Arsenal: Reality and Political Calculations

Many focused on the point regarding allowing Hamas to retain light weapons “initially,” viewing this as not merely a technical detail, but an implicit acknowledgment that reality cannot be erased by a political decision or negotiating document.

They argue that the weaponry in Gaza is a product of a stifling siege and repeated wars, and that, in the view of resistance supporters, it is a “guarantee of existence” in an equation skewed in Israel’s favor. Ignoring this reality and attempting to impose disarmament through force or economic pressure may produce only a “fragile truce” that falls short of genuine peace.

Bloggers noted that any truce proposed or discussed effectively applies only to one side – the Palestinian factions – although the other side continues killings, starvation, and imposing facts on the ground without effective deterrence.

Warnings Against “Surrendering Weapons”

activists warned against surrendering weapons “to the occupying Israeli enemy,” saying that this enemy “will not abandon its project of annihilation and occupation even if the Palestinians surrender.”

Some called for disarming settlers and “the occupying entity” instead of disarming the victim, asserting that any settlement that does not address the imbalance of power and the crimes of occupation will not produce peace, but will perpetuate a state of “coerced peace” under the threat of force.