Egypt calls for disarmament of Hamas

During a high-level conference in New York centered on the renewed global push for the recognition of a Palestinian state, Egypt surprised many observers by issuing a clear and firm call for the disarmament of Hamas, the militant organization that rules the Gaza Strip and is widely held responsible for the ongoing conflict with Israel.

In his address, the Egyptian representative emphasized that any progress toward a viable, independent Palestinian state must be accompanied by the dismantling of armed factions that operate outside the framework of national unity and legitimate authority.

“There can be no sustainable peace, and no credible statehood, if a heavily armed faction like Hamas continues to act autonomously, dragging millions into cycles of violence and undermining diplomatic efforts,” the Egyptian envoy stated before the assembled diplomats.

This position, while diplomatically phrased, marked a significant departure from the cautious ambiguity often seen in Arab League meetings regarding Hamas. 

Egypt, which shares a border with Gaza and has played a key mediating role in ceasefire efforts between Hamas and Israel, has grown increasingly frustrated with the group’s actions — particularly its tendency to provoke military escalations that have dire consequences for civilian populations.

A Calculated and Responsible Stance

Cairo’s call for Hamas to disarm is not without precedent. Over the years, Egyptian intelligence services have maintained close surveillance and contact with Hamas leaders, especially through the Rafah border crossing. 

Egypt has repeatedly attempted to broker reconciliation between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA), which governs the West Bank and is recognized internationally as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

According to Egyptian officials familiar with the mediation efforts, Hamas’s unwillingness to cede control over its arsenal and its military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, has been a major stumbling block in all unity talks. “The group operates with its own agenda, answers to no one, and uses resistance as a political currency rather than a strategic choice,” one Egyptian diplomat noted.

Egypt’s Broader Concerns

Behind Cairo’s stance lies not only a concern for Palestinian statehood, but also for regional stability and security. Egypt has long been wary of the influence of Islamist movements, particularly those affiliated with or inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood — of which Hamas is an offshoot. 

President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s government, which came to power after ousting the Muslim Brotherhood-led administration in 2013, has classified the group as a terrorist organization and views Hamas with similar suspicion.

Egyptian security officials also fear the spillover of weapons and jihadist ideology into the Sinai Peninsula, where a persistent Islamist insurgency has claimed hundreds of lives over the past decade. Hamas’s porous borders, smuggling tunnels, and past cooperation with Sinai militants have added to these concerns.

In a region often marked by rhetorical solidarity and strategic ambivalence, Egypt’s position in New York stood out as a rare voice of realism. 

While reaffirming its support for the Palestinian right to self-determination and statehood, Cairo made it clear that this right cannot coexist with the existence of a heavily armed faction that acts independently and perpetuates endless conflict.

The reaction from other Arab delegations was cautious, with some choosing to sidestep the issue, while others privately expressed agreement with Egypt’s stance but declined to speak openly.

Israeli officials, on the other hand, welcomed the statement. “This is a sober and important position from Egypt. We hope more countries in the region will follow suit,” an Israeli diplomat told reporters after the session.

As international momentum builds around the question of Palestinian statehood — buoyed by shifting geopolitical dynamics and increasing frustration with the status quo — Egypt’s message is both timely and significant. 

Recognition, it argues, must come with responsibility. And peace, if it is to be lasting, must be built not only on diplomacy and borders, but on the renunciation of violence and unilateral militarism.