TEHRAN – Over the past few days in late spring, reports have circulated about what took place in Cairo on disarming the Palestinian resistance in Gaza, a demand made by the occupying regime and included in parts of President Trump’s so-called “peace plan”.

Since its announcement nearly eight months ago, the plan has largely served the interests of the Zionist regime, which has waged aggression and war crimes, while marginalizing most of the demands of the Palestinian people.

These are people who have endured an unprecedented campaign of destruction and suffering, while their rights, guaranteed by international conventions and laws, have been treated with clear disregard and indifference.

Last week, important and decisive consultations and discussions were held in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, under highly complex regional circumstances. 

The Cairo talks took place amid a sharp increase in violations by Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) of the Gaza truce agreement. During the past three weeks, these violations reached unprecedented levels, including a surge in targeted killings of resistance leaders, continued enforcement of a severe blockade affecting all aspects of life in the strip, and the confiscation of additional Palestinian land through the illegal expansion of the occupation.

This area now consumes more than 65 percent of Gaza’s territory, with the regime’s authorities pushing to expand further. 

Under these sensitive and complex circumstances, the latest Cairo negotiations sought to salvage what could still be saved, prevent the complete collapse of the truce, and avoid a broad escalation that could return the genocidal war to its starting point. 

Far from the narratives promoted by various media outlets, whose coverage of the extensive and intensive meetings differed considerably, the issues discussed did not differ significantly from those raised in previous rounds of talks, whether regarding the subjects under consideration or the outcomes that followed.

During the Cairo negotiations involving Palestinian resistance forces and other regional mediators, emphasis was placed on the issue of disarming the resistance, as though it were the only provision contained in Trump’s plan. This plan largely ignored the suffering of more than two million people in Gaza, who have endured catastrophic and inhumane conditions throughout the genocide and continue to do so.

Instead, it focused primarily on stripping the Palestinian people of their sources of strength and depriving them of any means that might help them confront an occupation that openly seeks territorial expansion and the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, the occupied West Bank, the Negev, Galilee, and other Palestinian regions.

Regardless of the proposals presented to overcome the current setback surrounding the Gaza agreement, the situation is not just one of stagnation preventing progress toward its second phase, as some believe. Rather, it reflects a serious and dangerous regression that threatens the agreement’s complete collapse. 

The occupation regime’s authorities have failed to implement most provisions of the first phase and are openly working not only to evade their commitments but also to bypass the agreement altogether and return to a state of genocidal war, particularly in the lead-up to upcoming parliamentary elections.

What matters here is that the Palestinian resistance’s position on surrendering its weapons remains unchanged. It is a firm and principled position that is not open to negotiation or pressure.

This stance arises from the resistance’s awareness, across all factions, of the importance of preventing its weapons from becoming part of any proposal that might grant the occupying regime a victory it failed to achieve during more than two years of genocide.

Many media outlets, most notably Hebrew-language sources and certain Arabic-language outlets, promoted a narrative claiming that the resistance in Gaza had agreed to relinquish its weapons. According to these reports, Palestinian resistance forces sought to deny the occupation a pretext for resuming large-scale IOF aggression and had concluded that its weapons could no longer protect the Palestinian people or deter increasingly intense IOF actions.

This account, in all its various forms, is entirely inaccurate. It directly contradicts the established position adopted by the Palestinian resistance on this issue. That position has been communicated clearly and transparently to all relevant parties, without ambiguity or evasion, in a manner intended to prevent any misunderstanding that might later create a gap between words and actions.

Although Palestinian resistance forces have agreed to discuss certain new approaches related to this matter, including concepts such as “neutralization,” “freezing,” or “suspension,” their fundamental and non-negotiable position remains unambiguous. 

They reject any form of weapon surrender, whether to the Israeli regime or to any non-Palestinian entity. They also reject any proposal that would deprive the Palestinian people of their means of strength, even if that means only a handful of personal firearms or locally produced capabilities that bear no comparison to the military resources possessed by its adversary.

Two central and decisive reasons explain why the resistance in Gaza refuses any proposal that comes close to the issue of disarmament. These reasons are longstanding and go beyond the current conflict. 

They relate fundamentally to the broader Palestinian cause, which concerns Palestinians regardless of their political affiliations or ideological leanings: the restoration of what they regard as their legitimate rights. In the Gaza resistance’s view, these rights can only be achieved through struggle and resistance, as proven by previous generations, and cannot be replaced by any alternative approach, especially when confronting an adversary that is uncompromising, fascist, and unwilling to honor agreements or international resolutions.

The first reason is the Palestinian resistance’s conviction that this adversary would not end its military actions even if the last bullet were surrendered. In its view, the IOF has pursued expansion and control over the lands and resources of others since its inception and continues to do so today in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere.

Among the Palestinian resistance and many Gazans, there is a deeply held belief that, while these weapons may not prevent every aggression or stop the occupation of land, they remain a source of pressure, concern, and deterrence.

They prevent the Zionist regime from fully supporting the Palestinian cause or claiming a decisive and complete victory. This is considered especially important in relation to a regime seeking expansion and dominance and to a government whose leadership faces mounting political challenges.

The second reason behind the resistance’s commitment to retaining its weapons is the belief that surrendering arms acquired through immense sacrifice and effort, including the loss of tens of thousands of lives and the movement of resources across routes stretching thousands of kilometers, would amount to a complete and unconditional surrender to the occupying regime and its allies. Such a course, in its view, is one that the Palestinian people have consistently rejected throughout decades of conflict, preferring enormous sacrifice over capitulation.

Throughout the Palestinian national struggle, from Izz ad-Din al-Qassam to Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Dr. Fathi Shaqaqi, Abu Ali Mustafa, and thousands of others who came before and after them, to those who recently lost their lives, the idea of abandoning weapons is regarded by supporters as a profound betrayal.

Those who accept such a course are viewed as departing from the national consensus. In their view, such a development, regardless of the surrounding circumstances or justifications, could represent the final blow to the Palestinian struggle for freedom and a major victory for the Zionist project, which is the most dangerous political project in existence.

As many indicators suggest, the Palestinian resistance may engage with certain proposals concerning its weapons in ways that reduce the Zionists’ stated justifications for resuming genocide. It may also accept arrangements that allow its fascist enemy a face-saving exit from confrontation. 

However, the Palestinian resistance will not accept any proposal or framework that ultimately leads, directly or indirectly, to the removal of its weapons, whether partially or entirely. It insists, both in word and deed, that Palestinian resistance cannot be confined solely to peaceful or popular methods. 

In their view, an adversary possessing overwhelming military power responds only to strength, and meaningful negotiation can occur only when backed by force. This path carries costs and demands sacrifice. Yet, in the eyes of Palestinian supporters, that cost remains far lower than the price of submission and surrender. Throughout its long history of struggle, the Palestinian people have never chosen that path.