According to a new analysis by Abdul Latif Al-Manawi in “Al-Nahar” newspaper, Hamas “still considers ‘armed resistance’ the core of its identity and fears that disarmament would lead to loss of influence and legitimacy within the Palestinian street, especially with Fatah’s decline.” This central tension frames the ongoing debate about Hamas’s future political role amid ceasefire negotiations in Gaza.
As negotiations for a Gaza ceasefire continue amid complex battlefield dynamics and international pressure, a fundamental question emerges: Can Hamas be integrated into the Palestinian and Arab political system in exchange for disarmament? European and Arab nations are reportedly collaborating on a plan to transform Hamas from an armed resistance movement into a purely political entity capable of integration into the Palestinian political framework.
According to informed sources, Gulf officials have established direct communication channels with Hamas leadership, though it remains unclear whether France has initiated similar contacts. The initiative aims to pave the way for Hamas’s participation in future Palestinian governance, contingent upon complete disarmament. Israel, however, firmly opposes this approach, insisting on eliminating Hamas’s political and military influence following the conclusion of hostilities.
These diplomatic maneuvers coincide with the announcement of an international peace conference scheduled for June 17 at the United Nations headquarters in New York. Co-sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia, the conference aims to support the implementation of a two-state solution. However, the United States has yet to declare its official position on this initiative.
Palestinian Authority leadership, including President Mahmoud Abbas and his deputy Hussein Al-Sheikh, has renewed calls for Hamas to surrender its weapons to strengthen Palestinian national unity. During the opening of the Palestinian Central Council in Ramallah, Abbas directly accused Hamas of providing “the criminal occupation with a pretext to commit crimes in Gaza, most notably the detention of hostages.”
The critical question remains: Can Hamas transition from armed resistance to political participation? Analysts draw parallels with the Taliban in Afghanistan, though two fundamental differences exist. Unlike the Taliban, Hamas faces significant regional opposition despite controlling Gaza. Additionally, while the international community reluctantly engaged with the Taliban, Hamas’s reintegration would occur under externally imposed conditions.
Hamas appears to favor a “Lebanese formula” or “Hezbollah model” – participating in governance while maintaining some military capability. The organization may consider integrating into a Palestinian national army or a joint security force in Gaza. Still, its leadership understands that survival now depends on preventing political elimination and protecting its social infrastructure.
Regional mediators like Egypt and Qatar prefer a solution ensuring Palestinian Authority unity while gradually containing Hamas’s military capabilities. Internationally, Washington and European capitals require disarmament and recognition of Israel, though increasing flexibility exists if linked to comprehensive settlement and “security guarantees.”
The successful political integration of Hamas ultimately depends not merely on disarmament but on redefining its fundamental role within Palestinian politics. This complex process relies on mediators’ ability to establish a flexible negotiating framework offering economic and political incentives within an inclusive Palestinian structure. The final decision, however, extends beyond Hamas alone, resting within a complex regional equation involving Israel, Iran, and the United States.
Source: An Nahar