Both countries have spent more than a decade cultivating Hamas politically, financially, and ideologically, making them among the group’s most important international sponsors.
By Hezy Laing
The latest round of negotiations in Cairo brought together mediators from Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey with senior Hamas officials and representatives of several Palestinian factions in yet another attempt to secure Hamas’s agreement to disarm under the U.S.‑backed plan for the demilitarization of Gaza.
As Khaled Abu Toameh of the Gatestone Institute noted, nearly three years after the October 7 attacks, the fact that Hamas is still debating whether to hand over its weapons is itself a stark indictment of the international community’s approach.
If any doubts remained about Hamas’s intentions, the current talks should eliminate them.
The involvement of Qatar and Turkey adds a level of absurdity that has become characteristic of these diplomatic efforts.
Both countries have spent more than a decade cultivating Hamas politically, financially, and ideologically, making them among the group’s most important international sponsors.
Qatar has hosted Hamas’s political bureau in Doha since 2012, providing safe haven to leaders such as Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashal while transferring hundreds of millions of dollars into Gaza between 2014 and 2021.
Turkey, under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has granted residency and, according to multiple reports, even citizenship to senior Hamas operatives, allowing them to coordinate activities from Istanbul.
Expecting these two governments to pressure Hamas into disarmament is equivalent to asking patrons to dismantle their own protégés.
A Palestinian source told Sky News Arabia on June 9 that the factions negotiating in Cairo failed to reach agreement on the fate of Hamas’s weapons.
According to the report, Egypt, Qatar, and several Palestinian groups urged Hamas to accept a phased handover of its arsenal to the newly formed Palestinian National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, which would operate under an international “Board of Peace.”
Hamas, however, conditioned any disarmament on guarantees for the safety of its members and leaders, effectively turning the process into a bargaining exercise rather than a commitment to peace.
The deeper structural problem is that Qatar and Turkey have no incentive to pressure Hamas meaningfully because the group serves their regional agendas.
Qatar uses Hamas to project influence and maintain relevance in Arab politics, while Turkey leverages Hamas to position itself as a champion of political Islam.
As long as these states remain central mediators, the disarmament process is unlikely to move beyond symbolic gestures.
The result is a diplomatic theater in which sponsors pretend to restrain their own client while Hamas negotiates from a position of impunity rather than accountability.
