Gaza talks stall on disarmament

Gaza ceasefire talks are stuck on the hardest question in the whole deal — who gives up real leverage first. Hamas says it will not talk seriously about disarmament until Israel fully carries out earlier ceasefire terms. Israel, backed by a U.S.-designed postwar framework, wants Hamas’s weapons addressed before any full Israeli pullout or normal reconstruction can move ahead. This week’s Cairo contacts did not close that gap, and an Israeli strike that killed Azzam al-Hayya, son of senior Hamas negotiator Khalil al-Hayya, made the atmosphere even worse. (usnews.com) ### What is the actual sticking point? It is not some vague disagreement about “implementation.” The fight is over sequence and control. Hamas told mediators it would not discuss surrendering arms without guarantees that Israel would fully withdraw from Gaza under the existing plan. Hamas also wants an end to what it calls Israeli ceasefire violations and answers about Israel’s continued expansion of the areas it controls inside Gaza. (usnews.com) ### Why does disarmament make everything harder? Because weapons are Hamas’s last hard asset. Once those are gone, the movement loses bargaining power, internal control, and probably much of its future role in Gaza. The U.S.-backed framework ties reconstruction, aid flows, and the opening of crossings to phased disarmament. Hamas and other Palestinian factions see that as more than a security demand — basically as a demand for political surrender. (aljazeera.com) ### What does Israel want in practice? Israel wants a postwar Gaza where Hamas does not retain an armed wing or meaningful security control. The broader plan hands civilian administration to a technocratic committee meant to exclude Hamas. Even that has become a fight, because Hamas has pushed to fold in its own bureaucracy and roughly 10,000 police officers, which would preserve part of its grip on daily life. (nbcnews.com) ### Why are the crossings such a big deal? Because whoever controls crossings controls movement, aid, trade, and a lot of the real power on the ground. Rafah matters especially because it is Gaza’s link to Egypt and the outside world. So when talks turn to border management, they are really about who governs Gaza in the day after — Israel, a techn(nbcnews.com)e existential arguments fast. (aljazeera.com) ### What changed this week? The immediate shock was the strike in Gaza City that wounded Azzam al-Hayya on May 6; he died on May 7. He was the son of Khalil al-Hayya, Hamas’s top negotiator in the indirect talks. Hamas figures cast the attack as pressure during negotiations. Even if the strike was not aimed at the father directly, the message landed inside an already poisoned process. (aljazeera.com) ### Isn’t there already a ceasefire? Yes, but it has been a thin one. Reuters reported in early April that Hamas accused Israel of attacks that had killed hundreds in Gaza after the October ceasefire, while Israel said its strikes were meant to stop imminent militant attacks. Al Jazeera reported on May 3 that 828 Palestinians had been killed sinc(aljazeera.com)er became a clean stop to violence. (usnews.com) ### Why does this feel more fragile now? Because both sides think time helps the other side. Hamas fears disarming before Israel leaves. Israel fears withdrawing further while Hamas keeps guns, cadres, and local police. That is a classic sequencing trap — like two people arguing over who hands over the keys first, except the keys are territory, weapons, aid routes, and political survival. Each new strike makes compromise look more like weakness. (usnews.com) ### So what is the bottom line? The Gaza talks have not collapsed formally, but the part that matters most has barely moved. Until someone breaks the sequence problem — withdrawal first or disarmament first — every meeting risks becoming just a pause between rounds of fighting. (usnews.com)