Hamas Says Disarmament ‘Does Not Exist’ in Resistance Doctrine: Is Trump’s Gaza Roadmap Already Heading for Collision?
Hamas representative Khaled Qadomi says weapons are a legitimate right under occupation and disarmament is absent from Palestinian resistance doctrine. Israeli officials warn of a collision with Washington, while mediators fear Benjamin Netanyahu could restart the Gaza war before elections.
A senior Hamas representative has rejected the conceptual basis of disarmament even as negotiators discuss a roadmap built around removing weapons from the movement’s direct control.
Khaled Qadomi, Hamas’s representative in Iran, said the concept of disarmament does not exist in Palestinian resistance literature.
He described weapons as a legitimate right for nations living under occupation.
The statement appears to conflict directly with Donald Trump’s announcement that Hamas has agreed to an actionable plan for relinquishing its weapons.
It may reflect a genuine internal contradiction.
It may also reveal how Hamas intends to redefine the word “disarmament.”
The movement could accept storage, transfer or regulation of heavy weapons under a Palestinian national body while rejecting the idea that armed resistance has become illegitimate.
That distinction may satisfy neither Israel nor the United States.
Israel wants Hamas permanently incapable of launching another October 7-style attack. Washington’s roadmap depends on verifiable weapons removal followed by Israeli withdrawal.
If Hamas treats weapons as an inalienable right, every technical step becomes vulnerable to reversal.
Israeli Channel 13 cited a senior Israeli official warning that Israel could be on a collision course with the United States after the disarmament decision.
The precise meaning of that statement requires context.
Washington may pressure Israel to withdraw once Hamas enters the phased process. Israeli leaders may argue that political declarations and partial inventories are not sufficient.
A disagreement could emerge over whether Hamas is complying.
Trump wants to preserve a major diplomatic achievement. Netanyahu faces domestic pressure not to accept an arrangement that leaves Hamas’s underground organisation intact.
Mediators have also reportedly warned Trump that Netanyahu may launch another Gaza campaign before Israeli elections.
The message is politically plausible.
A renewed operation could interrupt withdrawal, weaken Hamas before implementation or serve Israeli electoral interests.
It remains an allegation about Netanyahu’s intentions rather than evidence that a final attack order exists.
Israel can point to Hamas’s own rhetoric as justification for caution.
Qadomi’s statement appears to say that the movement does not accept the end state Washington has advertised.
Hamas can respond that occupation and withdrawal must be resolved before weapons.
This returns negotiations to the sequencing problem.
Israel says disarm first, then withdrawal.
Hamas says withdraw first, then discuss weapons.
The roadmap attempts simultaneous stages, but public statements from both sides remain maximalist.
Internal Palestinian politics make compromise harder.
Hamas cannot easily announce that decades of armed resistance have ended under American pressure. Rival organisations could accuse it of surrender and continue operating independently.
Even if the political leadership accepts a deal, local commanders may hide weapons or refuse orders.
A Palestinian national committee could provide a face-saving mechanism.
Weapons might be registered and placed under national rather than factional authority. Hamas could say it did not surrender to Israel, while Washington could describe the process as disarmament.
Israel may reject the arrangement if Hamas retains influence over the committee or access to stored arms.
The words used in public statements are therefore not a minor communications issue.
They define what each side believes it has agreed to.
Trump’s administration has used the language of complete disarmament. Hamas representatives use the language of legitimate resistance. Israel uses the language of permanent demilitarisation.
These are three different end states.
The Board of Peace and mediators need a written operational definition.
Does disarmament mean destruction of rockets and explosives? Transfer of firearms? Closure of tunnels? Disbanding military units? Removal of commanders from political life?
What weapons can Palestinian police retain?
Who verifies compliance, and what is the penalty for hidden stockpiles?
Without answers, each side can claim success during negotiations and betrayal during implementation.
The risk of renewed Israeli military action is greatest during this ambiguity.
Netanyahu can argue that Hamas never truly agreed. Hamas can argue that Israel used the roadmap to demand surrender without withdrawal.
Trump may then face the choice between pressuring Israel and admitting the peace declaration was premature.
The open question is whether Qadomi is stating Hamas’s final position—or preserving resistance rhetoric while other officials negotiate a practical weapons transfer behind language the movement can survive politically.