Hamas Rejects Full Disarmament, Offers Weapons Freeze and Storage

Hamas has publicly rejected calls for complete disarmament while signaling limited flexibility toward a weapons freeze or storage arrangement under international guarantees, a senior Hamas figure told Al Jazeera, according to AFP. The comments come as diplomats press to finalize a ceasefire framework, advance hostage repatriations, and implement a proposed Board of Peace for Gaza.

The announcement places disarmament squarely among the highest red lines for one of the primary non state armed groups involved in the conflict, while also offering a possible path to reduce immediate violence. Hamas indicated it would consider a foreign force on Gaza’s borders but remained opposed to an international force inside Gaza if such a deployment would amount to occupation. Those distinctions matter to negotiators seeking arrangements that protect civilians while respecting Palestinian sovereignty.

For physicians, aid workers, and the millions of civilians living in Gaza the policy debate is not abstract. Recurrent hostilities have already devastated health infrastructure, depleted medical supplies, and strained emergency services. A weapons freeze that effectively reduces hostilities could open corridors for lifesaving aid and allow hospitals to resume services for routine care, maternal and child health, and chronic disease management. If, however, an agreement collapses or cannot be credibly verified, the humanitarian toll will continue to mount, with greater risk of outbreaks, malnutrition, and long term mental health trauma.

The question of verification is central. Storage arrangements and freezes require trusted monitoring mechanisms, secure facilities, and rapid dispute resolution to prevent relapse into violence. International guarantees may involve regional actors, United Nations agencies, and third party monitors, each bringing legal and logistical challenges. A force confined to Gaza’s borders could help deter external incursions but would not substitute for intrusive inspections inside populated areas, which Hamas says it will not accept. That stance complicates demands from the United States and other governments for comprehensive disarmament as a precondition for normalization or reconstruction support.

Policy makers must also weigh equity considerations. Disarmament expectations that are enforced unevenly would deepen grievances among communities that already face discrimination and deprivation. Women, children, elderly people, and persons with disabilities disproportionately bear the burden when essential services collapse. Reconstruction funds and humanitarian aid tied to disarmament benchmarks risk excluding those most in need if the benchmarks are infeasible or politically motivated.

Diplomats argue that any workable arrangement will need to link security guarantees with sustained humanitarian support and a clear roadmap for governance and reconstruction. The proposed Board of Peace for Gaza is intended to coordinate these elements, but its authority and capacity remain subjects of negotiation. Meanwhile hostage releases and ceasefire implementation are time sensitive, and each day of delay compounds human suffering.

The position articulated by Hamas narrows the window for a solution that satisfies the demands of all parties. It also foregrounds a stark reality for residents of Gaza: security arrangements negotiated at the diplomatic level will determine not only the presence or absence of armed conflict, but the immediate ability of public health systems to function and the long term viability of social equity and recovery.