Weapons for Withdrawal: The Negotiation Equation to End the War

The Palestinian resistance is proposing a new equation in the negotiations for the second phase of the ceasefire agreement, linking the storage of heavy weapons under the supervision of the Palestinian National Committee to a full Israeli withdrawal and a comprehensive end to the war. The factions affirm their refusal to hand over weapons to the occupation, while agreeing to manage them through a purely Palestinian decision. The article notes that mediators (Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, and the United States) welcome Palestinian flexibility, while the occupation insists on genuine disarmament before withdrawal, creating a gap in interpretation that could stall implementation.

The Palestinian resistance, led by Hamas, is putting forward a new equation at the negotiating table to end the war in Gaza, linking the weapons file to a full Israeli withdrawal and a comprehensive end to the war. The equation consists of linking the storage of heavy weapons under the supervision of the Palestinian National Committee to a timeline synchronized with the Israeli withdrawal, and refusing to hand over weapons to the occupation or any non-Palestinian party. This proposal comes as part of preparations for the second phase of the ceasefire agreement, whose roadmap Hamas announced its approval of at the end of July 2026. The factions assert that the resistance's weapons are 'the heritage of the Palestinian people,' and that they agree to manage them through a purely Palestinian decision, while keeping them under Palestinian control. The Palestinians stipulate that the inventory and storage of heavy weapons be carried out gradually after completing the first-phase commitments, including the Sharm el-Sheikh protocol, the entry of the National Committee to manage Gaza, and the deployment of the international stability force. The article argues that this arrangement prevents the storage from turning into permanent disarmament and preserves Palestinian deterrence. In contrast, the Israeli occupation insists on 'genuine disarmament' and the destruction of infrastructure before a full withdrawal, creating a gap in interpretation that could stall implementation. The mediators (Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, and the United States) welcome Palestinian flexibility and call on the international community to pressure Israel to fulfill its commitments. However, the article acknowledges that reliance on international pressure is limited, and actual implementation remains contingent on an official Israeli response and verification mechanisms.