With Backs to the Wall: Hamas Understands That Survival Requires Giving Up Weapons | Brig. Gen. (Res.) Hanan Gefen

The meeting of Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff with a delegation of Hamas leadership provides us with a gauge to test the changes in the consciousness of the Hamas leadership. According to reports, Kushner placed a tough equation on the table, reflecting the plan of President Donald Trump: the USA, while opposing the expulsion of Gaza residents, sets total disarmament as a threshold condition — a basic step that must be carried out before any political or civil move. The message to Hamas was unequivocal: do not pin hopes on Israeli politics or elections, as Israel is united in its opinion on the Gaza issue, and the movement's integration into political activity will not happen as long as you hold weapons.

The very existence of the meeting and the agreement of senior Hamas officials to these dictates testify to a deep process of change in consciousness among the organization's leadership. Hamas, which was accustomed to playing on the axis between Tehran, Doha, and Ankara, is beginning to internalize the full significance of its dependence on the United States. The dawning realization is that in order to survive physically and organizationally, the organization will have to pay the heaviest price for it: giving up weapons, giving up exclusive control over the civilian population, and subordination to American dictates.

On the other hand, the idea that "Hamas will become a political organization" seems like an escape hatch for the organization's survival; it was raised by Steve Witkoff at the beginning of 2024 as an American concession to advance the hostage deal. A hidden clause in the American understandings with Hamas also mentions a "hudna" (truce) of 7–10 years. The fundamental question that must be asked now is whether Hamas is even capable of surviving as a purely political entity? Throughout all its years of rule, Hamas's power did not stem from free popular support alone, but also from the barrel of a gun. The threatening weapons and the unrestrained brutality it demonstrated toward the civilian population in Gaza are what ensured its rule. Without the mechanisms of intimidation and violent coercive power, it is highly doubtful that Hamas can survive as a political organization. Giving up weapons is a direct threat to its organizational DNA.

Do these insights, alongside Hamas's desperate demand to stop the targeted killings against its operatives, testify to a state of pressure and distress? The Hamas leadership feels the noose tightening. The IDF and the Shin Bet are attacking Hamas operatives and its control mechanisms on one hand, and on the other, the American administration is offering a lifeline on the condition of full disarmament. The request to stop the killings is a distress signal from a leadership that has lost its balance and understands that it has no immunity anywhere.

In light of this situation, the question arises: what should we, in Israel, do now?

1. We must continue and maintain the military pressure. We must not give Hamas a moment of grace to reorganize under the umbrella of diplomatic contacts.

2. On the intelligence level, we are required to update and add collection and tracking targets against Hamas. If the organization tries to agree to a facade of "disarmament" in order to integrate politically, the Israeli intelligence community must focus now on exposing Hamas's "shadow civil control" mechanisms: tracking hidden money flows, exposing supposedly civil networks operating on behalf of the organization, locating weapons caches that they will try to bury deep in the ground for a "D-Day," and tracking attempts to take over the mechanisms of humanitarian aid distribution and the reconstruction of the Strip.

And finally, there is one issue that is not subject to negotiation, neither with Hamas nor with the Americans: the open account of October 7th. Even if any settlement processes mature, and even if Hamas agrees to disarm in exchange for such or another integration, Israel has a historical, moral, and security obligation to continue the elimination of the massacre participants.

Closing the account with every terrorist, commander, planner, or accomplice who took part in the brutal massacre, rape, and kidnappings must be an independent and eternal Israeli channel of action. These are not killings that can be traded for industrial quiet. The understanding among the Hamas leadership and its operatives must be clear: no diplomatic agreement or American plan will grant amnesty to those who have Israeli blood on their hands. The pursuit of them will continue, with strategic patience and consistency, until the last of them.