U.S. Senator Marco Rubio recently asserted that lasting peace in Gaza can only be attained if Hamas fully disarms, reinforcing Washington’s hardline approach and underscoring deep divisions over how stability in the region may be achieved.

Rubio stated during a policy discussion on Middle East security that any ceasefire or political arrangement which allows Hamas to retain weapons would set the stage for renewed violence, noting disarmament as an essential precondition of peace rather than something to negotiate later. Rubio made clear his concern was about fundamental security rather than diplomacy:

Rubio’s remarks came at a time when international efforts are still focused on short-term ceasefires, humanitarian access, and postwar governance scenarios for Gaza. While numerous regional and global actors have advocated reconstruction and political reform efforts for Gaza, Rubio stressed that they wouldn’t be sustainable if Hamas continues its military occupation.

Senator Senatus reiterated longstanding U.S. policy of designating Hamas as a terrorist organization and accusing it of intentionally targeting civilians. He stated that permitting Hamas to keep its military capabilities would threaten both Israeli security and Palestinian self-governance; disarmament would create conditions conducive to developing alternative leadership structures in Gaza.

Critics argue that demanding complete disarmament oversimplifies an already complex reality. Hamas has governed Gaza for nearly 10 years and maintains strong support networks – meaning expecting it to voluntarily give up its weapons without an overarching political framework may not be realistic given that no comprehensive regional agreement has yet been signed.

Humanitarian organizations warn that an exclusive focus on security may neglect immediate civilian needs. Gaza is grappling with extensive destruction, displacement and shortages of basic services; aid groups argue that while long-term peace depends on engaging armed groups directly, immediate priorities include relief operations, rebuilding infrastructure and protecting civilians.

Rubio rejected suggestions that humanitarian concerns and security demands are mutually exclusive, asserting that long-term humanitarian improvement depends on freeing Gaza of Hamas’ “militarized grip.” According to Rubio, continued military control diverts resources away from productive uses while fuelling cycles of violence that limit meaningful economic development.

International reactions have been mixed; while some U.S. allies share the view that Hamas cannot play any part in future governance arrangements, others stress the need for a phased approach that includes security guarantees as well as political incentives and regional mediation.

This debate highlights broad disagreements surrounding post-conflict planning. There remain outstanding questions over who would administer Gaza, how security would be enforced and the role regional actors might play. Rubio suggests that Washington will support any future plan only if it ensures Hamas disarming permanently.

Rubio’s remarks highlight a key challenge facing negotiators as diplomacy continues: striking a balance between immediate humanitarian concerns and long-term security objectives. How disarmament is treated during negotiations will ultimately have an impactful result for peace in Gaza.

Rubio has made his message crystal clear: without dismantling Hamas’ military capabilities, ceasefires may temporarily stop fighting but won’t lead to lasting peace.