US Misinterprets Hamas-Israel Agreement as Genuine Disarmament, Experts Warn

Senior US officials have portrayed the recent agreement between Israel and Hamas as a commitment by Hamas to disarm, but experts caution this view overlooks the complex realities of Middle Eastern politics. The article highlights that while Western decision-makers tend to see signed agreements as definitive resolutions, Hamas often uses such accords as tactical pauses rather than genuine peace commitments. This distinction stems from differing cultural and political logics: Western liberal peace implies conflict resolution and reconciliation, whereas for Hamas, temporary truces serve strategic purposes without conceding core ideological goals.

Professor Shaul Mishal explains that Hamas can agree to ceasefires or temporary arrangements as long as they do not imply permanent recognition of Israel’s legitimacy. The Western assumption that signed agreements reflect sincere intent and will be implemented faithfully does not align with Hamas’s approach, which views agreements as tools to reduce international pressure and gain time for future actions.

The article further discusses the religious-political concept of waqf, which sets normative limits on what can be compromised, emphasizing that temporary concessions should not erase historical claims. This framework also applies to Iran’s dealings with the US and Gulf states. The US and Western powers tend to interpret agreements as legal and moral commitments, while Hamas sees them as flexible instruments within ongoing conflict dynamics.

The announcement of a Hamas disarmament deal is described as illustrative of this gap: US officials call it a historic step toward lasting security, yet they privately express skepticism about Hamas’s willingness to relinquish arms. The article warns that presenting such agreements as final peace solutions obscures the reality that they often serve as mechanisms to manage rather than end conflict.

In conclusion, the piece urges Israel and Western observers to interpret agreements through the lens of Hamas’s strategic culture rather than Western legalistic frameworks. The true test of any accord lies in tangible changes on the ground, such as dismantling tunnels and removing weapons, rather than signatures alone. Without this understanding, there is a risk of celebrating peace prematurely while the other side merely secures a temporary ceasefire.