GAZA, (PIC)
As Israel’s military assault continues on the ground in Gaza, another battle is unfolding in parallel in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, a very different kind of battle, centered on wording, guarantees and understandings.
This round of negotiations revolves around a highly sensitive issue that has long obstructed a final agreement: the question of weapons held by Palestinian resistance factions.
The weapons dilemma: From rejection to how and when?
Talks in Cairo continued for a fourth day Tuesday, with the heads of Egyptian and Turkish intelligence and Qatar’s prime minister involved, alongside open coordination with US envoy Steve Witkoff and the Peace Council’s high representative, Nikolay Mladenov.
Information emerging from the Cairo talks between Palestinian factions and mediators indicates that the weapons issue has been placed on the table as part of a broader package aimed at reaching wider understandings.
The available information suggests that mediators are focused on redrafting clauses eight and nine of Mladenov’s draft plan, the two clauses directly linked to this sensitive question.
In this context, journalist and analyst Wissam Afifa notes a significant shift in the nature of the discussion. He says the debate is no longer centered on the principle of rejection or acceptance, but rather on the mechanism, timing and guarantees.
In an article, Afifa says Palestinian factions have upheld a set of clear conditions, including not touching individual weapons, linking any arrangements to the Israeli withdrawal track and its phases, and rejecting any discussion of handing over weapons before eliminating the phenomenon of “collaborator gangs.”
They also insist that any measure related to this file must take place within a purely Palestinian framework and be tied to a comprehensive political solution rather than temporary security arrangements.
According to Afifa, this approach gives mediators room to maneuver by shifting the discussion from the question of “whether it will happen or not” to “how, when and under what conditions.”
From disarmament to weapons control: The new approach
In his reading of the proposed approaches, researcher and political analyst Iyad al-Qarra says the heart of the current debate centers on an issue raised by former UN envoy Nikolay Mladenov: the weapons of the resistance, which he framed as the main obstacle preventing a transition to new phases of the agreement.
In an opinion article, Qarra says what is currently being proposed represents a different approach, moving from the concept of “disarmament” to that of “weapons control.” This would mean addressing the matter within a consensual Palestinian national framework, rather than treating it as a prior Israeli condition imposed on Palestinians.
According to Qarra, this approach is an attempt to bridge the position of Israel and the US on one side, and the position of Palestinian factions that reject disarmament on the other. It could therefore create an opening to break the current deadlock.
The regional context: Washington needs an achievement
The Cairo negotiations cannot be understood apart from the tense regional context. According to Qarra, the Cairo meetings coincide with rising regional tension amid the confrontation between Iran and Israel, as well as the disruption of several regional files that have become sources of concern for the US administration.
In this context, Qarra argues that Washington needs a political breakthrough in one of the region’s hot files, and that Gaza stands out as a track capable of producing a diplomatic achievement that the US president could present.
Israel also finds itself in need of an exit. Netanyahu faces mounting crises, beginning with the confrontation with Iran, extending to challenges in Lebanon, and not ending with the absence of any real achievement that can be announced in Gaza.
It is worth noting that the current agreement, which Israel violates daily, was formed under joint US, Egyptian and Qatari sponsorship last October. Its collapse would therefore represent a strategic loss for all sponsoring parties, not merely a passing negotiating failure.
Breaking the deadlock: The ball is in the US-Israeli court
Qarra identifies the potential effect of the factions’ acceptance of discussing “weapons control” within a Palestinian national framework, saying that it “removes the pretext that has been used in recent months to justify obstructing the implementation of the agreement,” and shifts the burden of action to the US-Israeli side.
If agreement is reached on this formula, Qarra says the practical requirement would be to move toward implementing the remaining suspended provisions of the agreement, foremost among them a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, activation of the administrative committee established by the agreement, the launch of the reconstruction process, and the opening of crossings.
Israel has not complied with its obligations under the ceasefire agreement, despite the Palestinian factions’ commitment to everything required of them, amid assessments that the weapons issue is merely a pretext for continuing the assault.
A view of what comes next: Three scenarios
Based on analysis of the current scene and the overlapping interests of the parties involved, experts see three possible scenarios for the next phase.
The first scenario is a limited breakthrough: a consensual formula is reached on weapons control within a national framework, opening a gap in the wall of deadlock and allowing implementation of the operational provisions of the second phase of the agreement to begin. This is the scenario most closely watched in diplomatic circles.
The second scenario is prolongation: the Cairo round succeeds in preventing the total collapse of the negotiation track, but without producing a final agreement. Negotiations would then continue under mounting pressure while all sides wait for new developments that could accelerate a resolution.
The third scenario is collapse of the track: the talks fail to bridge the gap between the two positions, causing the agreement to collapse completely or become so obstructed that it effectively collapses. This scenario, however, appears the least likely given the high costs all parties would bear as the genocide continues.
In the end, the analyses of Afifa and Qarra converge around one central conviction: Cairo is not searching for a new agreement that redraws the maps, but rather for a bridge to cross the final obstacle blocking the road.
All sides are now awaiting decisive hours in which mediators will try to craft a formula that balances the constants of the Palestinian factions with complex international calculations, at an extremely sensitive regional moment.