Gaza Talks in Cairo Stall amid Disputes on Disarmament

Cairo has become the center of a difficult attempt to turn the Gaza ceasefire from a fragile military pause into a political arrangement. Palestinian factions, Egyptian officials, Qatari and Turkish mediators, and representatives linked to the international Peace Council are working through a roadmap for the next phase of the agreement. Most of the document has moved close to consensus, but one clause still threatens to block the entire track, which is related to the future of armed Palestinian groups in Gaza.

The dispute centers on clause 8 of the working paper discussed in Cairo. The clause deals with the weapons of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other armed resistance factions in the Strip. Israel’s position, as relayed in the negotiations, is that Hamas and the other factions must surrender their weapons to an international stabilization force expected to deploy under the U.S.-backed plan for Gaza. Israeli officials and security figures view this as the practical test of any post-war arrangement.

The Palestinian position is built around a different sequence. Hamas and other factions say the weapons file cannot be separated from the end of Israeli control over Gaza, the completion of the first phase of the ceasefire, the entry of the administrative committee, the opening of crossings, the regular flow of aid, and the beginning of a credible political path. For them, disarmament as an upfront Israeli condition turns the negotiations into a mechanism for imposing the outcome of the war through diplomacy.

Egypt’s proposed compromise tries to create language that can keep both sides inside the process. The Egyptian draft reportedly avoids a direct formula of handing weapons to Israel. Instead, it speaks of a gradual and phased process to collect, inventory, and regulate weapons according to an agreed timetable. The process would take place under Palestinian leadership, with participation from armed organizations in identifying military infrastructure, and with the involvement of the national committee, the stabilization force, and a verification and implementation committee.

This formula reflects Cairo’s attempt to shift the debate from “disarmament” to “management.” It gives Israel a path toward reducing the independent military power of Hamas and other factions. It gives Hamas a way to avoid a direct surrender of weapons to Israel or a foreign force. It also links the weapons question to broader implementation: the completion of phase one, the entry of Gaza’s administrative committee, the deployment of the stabilization force, the dismantling of militias, the political track in Trump’s plan, and the gradual Israeli withdrawal from the Strip.

Hamas has pushed back on several parts of the Egyptian wording. The movement objected to assigning the international stabilization force roles inside Gaza’s security management or in handling the weapons file. Hamas argues that the role of that force, under the Sharm el-Sheikh understandings, should remain limited to separation between forces and presence near border areas. This objection reflects a deeper fear that an international force could become a security authority over Gaza rather than a buffer arrangement.

The movement also rejected the term “resistance infrastructure.” Hamas considers the phrase too broad and open to interpretation, since it could cover military assets as well as warehouses, vehicles, medical facilities, or civilian installations. In the view of the factions, vague wording could allow Israel or international actors to expand the clause beyond weapons into the dismantling of organizational and social structures inside Gaza.

The third objection concerns the language of “collection” or “disarmament.” Hamas prefers the phrase “dealing with the weapons file,” a wording that keeps the matter open to negotiation within a Palestinian national framework. The distinction is political rather than semantic. “Disarmament” suggests a final outcome. “Dealing with the weapons file” suggests a process linked to guarantees, withdrawal, governance, reconstruction, and the future of the Palestinian cause.

The Cairo talks have therefore produced progress and exposed the hardest contradiction at the same time. Palestinian sources say 14 of the 15 clauses have been agreed in principle. The remaining clause concerns the issue Israel sees as central to its security aims and Hamas sees as central to its survival and bargaining power. That makes clause 8 the real test of whether the ceasefire can move toward a second phase.

The Israeli side is also increasing pressure outside the negotiation room. The Israeli army has reportedly prepared plans for renewed large-scale operations in Gaza if the disarmament track fails. This military pressure strengthens Israel’s bargaining position, while also reinforcing the Palestinian argument that the weapons demand is being presented under threat of renewed war.

The talks now rest on a narrow political bridge. Israel wants the end of Hamas as an armed force, while Hamas wants guarantees that Gaza will move toward withdrawal, reconstruction, and Palestinian administration before any irreversible step on weapons. The outcome, therefore, could determine whether the Gaza ceasefire becomes a post-war settlement or another pause before renewed fighting.