Will Israel Withdraw from Gaza if Hamas Disarms?

The recent announcement by Hamas that it is willing to disarm has been met with skepticism by Israeli officials. They insist on complete disarmament before even considering a withdrawal of their military forces from the Gaza Strip. This approach is not new; it’s a familiar pattern in the Middle East’s most intractable conflict.

A key component of the United States-brokered plan, championed by President Donald Trump, aims to end Israel’s war on Gaza through an International Stabilization Force (ISF) and a new Palestinian police force. However, the proposed sequence of events – disarmament followed by withdrawal – is likely to lead to another stalemate.

Historically, this approach has been tried before with little success. The Israeli government’s demand for complete disarmament from Hamas is unrealistic, given the group’s conviction that its military strength is necessary for protecting Palestinian interests in the face of repeated Israeli aggression. Conversely, Hamas cannot be expected to relinquish its arsenal without some assurance of security and self-determination.

The Futility of Conditionality

Conditionality attached to Israel’s withdrawal – complete disarmament by Hamas as a prerequisite for troop pullout – has been employed before with disastrous results. During the Oslo Accords, Israel’s refusal to meet its obligations led to widespread disillusionment among Palestinians and contributed to the Second Intifada.

Similarly, this current scenario threatens to become another exercise in futility, perpetuating a cycle of violence that neither side seems willing or able to break. The proposed ISF risks becoming an external entity imposed on Gaza without genuine buy-in from its people, reinforcing the perception of occupation and eroding prospects for cooperation.

A Different Path Forward?

Rather than perpetuating this futile cycle, it’s time to re-examine the fundamental assumptions underlying Trump’s plan. The focus should shift from conditionality – Hamas disarms before Israel withdraws – to a more nuanced approach addressing the root causes of the conflict. This would involve genuine efforts to address Palestinian grievances, improve living conditions in Gaza, and establish meaningful mechanisms for cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians.

Ultimately, any solution must recognize the legitimate security concerns of both sides while acknowledging the inherent injustices perpetrated by decades of occupation and displacement. By pursuing a more inclusive and equitable approach, it may be possible to break free from the cycle of violence that has come to define this conflict – but only if all parties are willing to adapt their assumptions and engage in genuine dialogue.

The international community’s role in this process cannot be overstated. The United States must take a harder look at its own complicity in perpetuating the status quo, rather than serving as an external arbiter. It should work to facilitate a more collaborative and inclusive process that empowers both Israelis and Palestinians to find common ground.

The Gaza Puzzle: Who Will Move First?

The question of who will move first – Hamas or Israel – is less relevant than the deeper issues at stake. What’s clear, however, is that the current path forward, reliant on conditionality and external intervention, is doomed to fail and perpetuates a cycle of violence neither side can afford to sustain.

The withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza is crucial but must be accompanied by tangible efforts to address Palestinian grievances and establish a genuine framework for cooperation. Only then can we hope to break free from the Catch-22 that has characterized this conflict for far too long – and perhaps find a way forward that’s more inclusive, equitable, and genuinely sustainable.