Without disarmament, the cycle of war will never end

When President Trump came to Israel and announced the end of the Gaza war, hopes were raised that this would be the start of vanquishing Hamas and rebuilding the war-shattered enclave. One of the 20-point plan’s clearest points was that Gaza had to be disarmed and turned into a terror-free zone, allowing Arab countries to fund the necessary reconstruction of Gaza and allowing its inhabitants the chance of a better future.

Yet such a plan requires clear political will, not just bloviating about peace in our time. Right now, there is no sign that Hamas will disarm or relinquish power in the zone that it now controls. The terror group accepted Qatari pressure to release hostages, but perhaps only because it would maintain a foothold in the enclave after a ceasefire.  As a result, it has violated that ceasefire on innumerable occasions.

Not only have they delayed releasing the dead hostages and staged false recoveries, but they have also attacked and killed Israeli soldiers, leading to a series of punishing Israeli strikes. They have also tortured and publicly executed Palestinians whom they accuse of collaboration with Israel.

It is clear that they will not voluntarily release their arms in return for an amnesty or absent themselves from running Gaza. One of the countries that is most eager to maintain the status quo is Qatar, a long-term supporter and funder of the Muslim Brotherhood and a nation whose ministers openly praise Hamas.

In a recent meeting with a government minister, it was revealed that the task of disarmament would fall, not to Arab countries due to local sensitivities, but instead to countries such as Azerbaijan, Pakistan and Indonesia

The 20-point plan stipulates that the international stabilisation force will provide security within Gaza and deal with removing and decommissioning Hamas’s arms. Yet already there is a growing divide between lofty pretensions on paper and diplomatic realities on the ground.

Jordan’s King Abdullah II has made it clear that his country will not provide troops for the region, as his country is ‘too close politically’ to the situation. Egyptian officials have also stated their opposition to forcibly disarming Hamas, preferring a model of decommissioning weapons through an agreed process.

In a recent meeting with a government minister, it was revealed that the task of disarmament would fall, not to Arab countries due to local sensitivities, but instead to countries such as Azerbaijan, Pakistan and Indonesia.

However, armed confrontation between the forces of those nations and Hamas is also politically risky and would play out badly on the domestic policy front. It would suggest that they were stooges of Israel and lead to significant repercussions, jeopardising the ISF’s operations.

Worryingly, there are reports suggesting that the Trump administration will forego disarmament in order to concentrate on rebuilding that part of Gaza not under Hamas control. This permanent split between a green zone and a red zone risks the ‘Berlinification’ of Gaza and is a recipe for long-term war.

Sadly, this baleful situation is mirrored in postwar Lebanon, too. The 2024 ceasefire agreement called on Hezbollah to withdraw from the area south of the Litani River and for the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to disarm the terror group.

The LAF claims to have achieved much success here, reportedly destroying 10,000 rockets, 400 missiles and a vast number of unexploded ordnance fragments. But there are private homes and farms into which the terror group has entrenched itself, areas that the LAF will not enter.

As a result, thousands of weapons remain embedded close to Israel’s borders, presenting an imminent threat to the Jewish state.

Despite the ceasefire, Iran has been funnelling hundreds of millions of dollars to Hezbollah in an attempt to rehabilitate its most valued client. Knowing all this, Israel has been carrying out a series of airstrikes in Lebanon targeting Hezbollah’s leaders, including the recent killing of senior military commander Haytham Ali Tabatabai.

The ceasefires in both Gaza and Lebanon remain fragile instruments of international policymaking, dependent on the willingness of terror groups to lay down their weapons. Right now, that willingness is in short supply. In the absence of a credible enforcement mechanism or sufficient political will, it will fall to Israel to resurrect its military operations, if need be, on two fronts.

• Jeremy Havardi is a freelance journalist and author