Will the Andalusian tragedy be repeated if Hamas hands over its weapons?

The demand, repeated so often by Washington and Tel Aviv, that "HAMAS must disarm": the Zionists and their partners have been repeating this demand for years. It is as if this is the "only key to peace." If we look at history, no liberation movement has ever surrendered its weapons in exchange for empty promises. Those who have not made such a huge mistake have only one truth: not disarmament, but the preservation of weapons is the main factor in achieving freedom. Therefore, the Zionists' demand for Hamas is not to achieve "peace", but to surrender itself to the enemy. Believing in the promises of the enemies of Islam means facing the tragedy of the Andalusian Muslims, which history has not yet forgotten.

——

The phrase that Washington and Tel Aviv are constantly repeating: Hamas must surrender its weapons, disband, and withdraw from Gaza “in a dignified manner.” This demand is presented as the only condition for peace, the iron law of security. But anyone who knows the enemies well, who have so far failed to keep any of their promises, can only laugh at these words.

In fact, this demand shows a complete lack of understanding of the essence of Hamas ideology. No armed movement in modern history has ever surrendered its weapons in exchange for empty promises. Today, Israel is facing its biggest security crisis in decades. Until now, Hamas has never agreed to surrender its weapons. They did not want to give up their main force without guaranteeing the future, sovereignty, and security of Palestine.

If the weak side surrenders, trusting in the promises of its powerful enemy, it may well suffer the same fate as Granada, the capital of Andalusia, in 1492. At that time, the last Muslim stronghold surrendered to the Catholic kings Ferdinand and Isabella. The 80-page treaty document, consisting of promises, guaranteed the lives, property, movement and, most importantly, freedom of religion of the Muslims. But less than two years later, this document turned into a simple, worthless piece of paper. The Pope issued a fatwa, giving the king permission to break his promise. Forced excommunications, inquisitions and exiles began. The Muslims of Andalusia were completely destroyed in their own land. This incident reminds future generations of the consequences of unconditional surrender. When the forces are unbalanced, a promise is nothing more than a temporary obstacle for the strong side. For Hamas, disarmament is not peace, but the transformation into a modern Andalusia.

The Viet Cong (a communist guerrilla movement that operated in South Vietnam from the 1950s to the 1970s) learned a different lesson. They were offered to surrender their weapons in exchange for political recognition at the Paris peace talks. They refused and intensified their guerrilla warfare. It was this determination that led to the defeat of American troops on the battlefield. The Viet Cong understood well: in an unequal war, weapons are not surrendered; they are the basis for survival. With their weapons, they exhausted the enemy, forced them to reckon with them, and brought the continuation of the invasion to an unbearable level.

Disarmament came after Sinn Féin, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army, had secured a secure and important position in government. Prisoners were released, their political power was consolidated. The Irish Republican Army surrendered its weapons not as a condition of peace, but as a result of a political victory. And even then, this step was taken not from a position of relative strength, but from total weakness.

Hamas's position is similar: the military wing of the liberation movement is its main source of strength.

For Hamas, the choice is clear and has a historical basis. Disarmament without sovereignty and the "iron" guarantees of a strong third party would not be a gesture of peace, but self-destruction. The Israelis and Americans still think of Hamas as "just a bunch of Arabs." As if they could be fooled by empty promises. But the Hamas leaders know history well. They have not forgotten the Andalusian incident. They have taken the Viet Cong as an example. They have not forgotten that the Irish Republican Army surrendered its weapons only after achieving political victory.