Hamas asked to disarm in Rafah deal

The Gaza story here is not just “peace talks continue.” It’s that phase two of the ceasefire has reached the part both sides always knew would be the hardest. The current framework moves beyond hostage exchanges and pauses in fighting, and into the question of who controls Gaza, who carries weapons there, and whether Israel actually pulls back. That is where the disarmament demand lands — and why it matters now. ### What is the deal asking for? Phase two is built around a bigger trade than phase one was. Hamas and other armed groups would move toward disarmament. Israel would withdraw more forces. Rafah — the crossing with Egypt that matters for movement, aid, and medical evacuations — would reopen. An international security or stabilization force would also enter Gaza as part of the postwar arrangement. (aljazeera.com) ### Why is disarmament the real choke point? Because it is not a technical detail. It is the whole argument. For Israel and the U.S., Hamas staying armed means the war’s core security problem is still there. For Hamas, handing over weapons before a full Israeli withdrawal and a credible political arrangement looks less like a ceasefire and more like surrender. That is why the debate keeps circling back to the same word — demilitarization. (aljazeera.com) ### Why does Rafah matter so much? Rafah is not just a border gate. It is Gaza’s southern outlet to Egypt, and in practice it is tied to aid access, evacuations, and any believable reconstruction plan. Reopening Rafah signals that the ceasefire is turning into something more durable. Keeping it constrained signals the opposite — that Gaza is still effectively sealed and temporary arrangements are all anyone has. (aljazeera.com) ### Who would run Gaza if Hamas disarms? That is the other half of the problem. The phase-two discussion is not only about guns. It is also about governance — technocrats, outside monitors, and some kind of international body helping stabilize the territory while reconstruction starts. You can think of it as trying to remove the current power center before a trusted replacement really exists. That is why every proposal sounds neat on paper and shaky in practice. (cbsnews.com) ### Has Hamas shown any willingness? Only in very qualified ways. Reporting around the talks has suggested U.S. officials floated disarmament with some form of amnesty, but Hamas leaders have publicly rejected giving up arms while what they describe as Israeli occupation continues. So the gap is not over sequencing alone. It is over whether weapons are a bargaining chip, a red line, or the last guarantee Hamas believes it has. (gulfnews.com) ### Why is Turkey suddenly in the picture again? Turkey has stayed involved because it has channels to Hamas and wants a role in the diplomatic track. On May 9, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan met Muhammad Darwish, who heads Hamas’s Shura Council, to discuss peace efforts and aid. But the same day’s reporting also showed the basic contradiction — diplomacy was moving while people in Gaza were still being killed. (aljazeera.com) ### So is the ceasefire holding? Formally, parts of it are still alive. Functionally, it looks brittle. Al Jazeera’s recent reporting describes repeated Israeli violations and continuing deaths in Gaza even as phase-two diplomacy goes on. That matters because every new strike makes the political ask tougher — especially any plan that tells Hamas to disarm first and trust the rest later. (sg.news.yahoo.com) ### What’s the bottom line? The real negotiation is not about wording. It is about power after the war. If Hamas keeps its weapons, Israel says the war’s purpose failed. If Hamas gives them up without ironclad guarantees, Hamas sees itself giving away its leverage. Rafah, troop withdrawals, and any international force all hang on that deadlock. (cbsnews.com) (aljazeera.com)