The Paradox of Palestinian Unity: How Weapons Management Could Make or Break the Next Gaza Agreement

Hamas’s demand for a consensus-based weapons management plan reveals the central contradiction of Palestinian politics: the need for unity to achieve sovereignty while armed factions remain the primary obstacle to that very unity.

The Context Behind the Demand

Hamas’s reported insistence on a “defined plan for the management of weapons post-agreement” represents far more than a tactical negotiation point. It reflects the complex reality of Gaza’s political landscape, where multiple armed factions operate independently while claiming to serve the Palestinian cause. The stipulation that any weapons handover must involve “an agreed-upon Palestinian authority” with “Arab participation and consensus among Palestinian factions” acknowledges a fundamental truth: no single Palestinian entity currently commands sufficient legitimacy to monopolize the use of force.

This demand emerges against the backdrop of previous failed attempts at Palestinian reconciliation. Since the 2007 split between Hamas and Fatah, numerous unity agreements have foundered on the question of who controls security forces and weapons. The Egyptian-brokered reconciliation attempts of 2011, 2014, and 2017 all collapsed when it came time to implement security arrangements. Hamas’s current position suggests they’ve learned from these failures, seeking a multilateral framework that could potentially succeed where bilateral agreements have not.

The Regional Dimension

The call for “Arab participation” in weapons management represents a significant shift in Hamas’s traditional stance. Historically resistant to external interference in Palestinian affairs, Hamas now appears to recognize that sustainable peace requires regional buy-in. This could involve countries like Egypt, Qatar, or Saudi Arabia playing oversight roles—a development that would fundamentally alter the dynamics of Palestinian governance.

Such an arrangement would serve multiple purposes. It could provide international legitimacy to any weapons management system, offer security guarantees to Israel, and create a buffer between rival Palestinian factions. However, it also raises questions about Palestinian sovereignty and self-determination. Would Arab oversight become a permanent feature of Palestinian governance? How would this affect the Palestinian Authority’s already fragile claim to represent all Palestinians?

The Unity Paradox

The requirement for “consensus among Palestinian factions” exposes the circular logic that has trapped Palestinian politics for decades. Achieving consensus requires some form of unified authority, but creating that authority requires consensus on fundamental issues like weapons control. Hamas’s formulation attempts to square this circle by proposing a collective management system, but this raises its own challenges.

Which factions would be included in this consensus? Beyond Hamas and Fatah, Gaza hosts Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and various smaller armed groups. Each has its own international backers, ideological commitments, and organizational interests. A weapons management system that satisfies all parties might be too weak to be effective, while one strong enough to maintain order might alienate key constituencies.

Implications for Future Governance

This weapons arrangement proposal offers a preview of post-conflict Palestinian governance challenges. Any future Palestinian state would need to establish a monopoly on legitimate violence—a basic requirement of sovereignty. Yet the current proposal suggests a model of distributed authority that could institutionalize factional divisions rather than overcome them. This could create a Lebanese-style system where armed groups maintain parallel governance structures, ultimately weakening the state.

The international community faces its own dilemma. Supporting a weak consensus-based system might perpetuate instability, but backing a strong central authority could be seen as taking sides in internal Palestinian disputes. The involvement of Arab states adds another layer of complexity, as each has its own interests and preferred Palestinian partners.

As negotiations continue, the weapons management question will likely prove pivotal. It represents not just a security concern but a fundamental question about Palestinian political identity: Can a nation be built on consensus among armed factions, or must unity come first? The answer may determine whether the next agreement represents a step toward Palestinian statehood or merely another temporary ceasefire in an endless conflict.