You Say You Support a Palestinian State, Here’s Why You Can’t Also Demand Disarmament

Germany’s foreign ministry recently repeated a common Western stance:

“Germany supports the right of the Palestinian people to their own state… Hamas must lay down its weapons and must not play a political role again.”

This echoes a wider international message. Western leaders say they support Palestinian statehood, but only if the resistance is disarmed and certain factions excluded. Although this position may sound balanced, in reality, it is deeply contradictory and dangerous.

Here is why you cannot advocate for an independent Palestinian state while demanding that Palestinians give up the only means they have to fight occupation.

What Does an Independent State Actually Mean?

Statehood is more than a flag or a seat at the UN. It means full sovereignty; control over borders, land, airspace, resources, and political decisions.

If Israeli soldiers can enter Palestinian towns at will, if airstrikes can flatten cities without warning, and if movement depends on permits and checkpoints, then no real state exists.

Demanding disarmament before ending the occupation undermines the very idea of independence. It turns a future Palestinian state into a non-sovereign entity, forever vulnerable to Israeli power.

Palestinians did not invent conflict. They inherited occupation.

For decades, Israel has expanded settlements in the West Bank, imposed a siege on Gaza, and carried out repeated military attacks. Home demolitions, mass arrests, and killings are routine. Children grow up under drones and checkpoints, not under freedom.

Armed resistance, like all forms of resistance, emerged from these conditions. It is not the cause of violence, it is a response to it.

To ask Palestinians to lay down their weapons while Israeli attacks continue is to ask them to surrender their last line of defense.

What Happens When Resistance Is Disarmed?

The West Bank already shows us the result. The Palestinian Authority was pressured to crack down on resistance groups in exchange for international recognition and funding.

In return, it gained limited autonomy under constant Israeli oversight. It lost legitimacy among its own people. Its power depends on Israeli cooperation, not Palestinian strength.

Compare that with liberation movements around the world. In Algeria, Vietnam, and South Africa, armed resistance played a central role in ending colonial rule. In none of these cases did the oppressed disarm before the oppressors withdrew.

As legal expert Ihsan Adel notes:

“Dozens of UN resolutions support national liberation movements… including armed struggle… The Declaration on Friendly Relations recognizes the right to resist foreign forcible actions that deprive people of self‑determination.”

A State Under Control Is Not a State

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot support Palestinian statehood while insisting that Israel remains the only armed power in the region.

Such a “state” would be a patch of land with no sovereignty. It would be defenseless against future incursions, drone strikes, or military raids. It would function more like a dependent protectorate than a free nation.

Disarmament under occupation does not lead to peace. It leads to enforced submission.

Why Are Only the Oppressed Asked to Disarm?

Israel possesses one of the most powerful armies in the world. It has a nuclear arsenal, advanced drones, tanks, and air superiority. No Western government demands that Israel disarm before peace negotiations begin.

Why then is disarmament demanded only of Palestinians?

This double standard exposes the imbalance of power at the heart of so-called peace efforts. Real peace requires symmetry, mutual accountability, and justice. You cannot build peace by stripping the colonized of power while letting the colonizer keep all its weapons.

Ibrahim Fraihat of Brookings put it plainly:

“If Israel has the right to defend itself… then surely Palestinians have the right to protect themselves from brutal and escalating Israeli violence.”

Under international law, people under foreign occupation have the right to resist. UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43 affirms:

“The legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence… by all available means, including armed struggle.”

Legal scholar Lynda Burstein Brayer states clearly that this legitimizes the Palestinian resistance.

Of course, there are legal and moral limits. Attacks on civilians are war crimes. But targeting military forces of an occupying power is recognized as legitimate resistance.

As former UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk noted:

“Rights of peoples to resist… were not acknowledged in international law for a long time… but political philosophers recognized a right of revolution in the face of tyranny.”

What Does Israel Really Want?

When Israel demands disarmament, it is not calling for peace. It is demanding submission.

Disarmament is part of a larger strategy to neutralize Palestinian resistance while continuing occupation, settlement expansion, and land theft. It is framed as a “security need,” but in practice, it locks Palestinians into a powerless position.

Without resistance, Israel can impose its will without consequence. Without leverage, Palestinians have nothing to negotiate with.

Western disarmament demands also deepen internal Palestinian divisions. In Gaza, resistance groups remain armed. In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority is unarmed and subordinate to Israeli forces.

This divide weakens the national liberation project and fuels internal distrust. It fragments the Palestinian cause just when unity is most needed.

Writer Louis Allday warns against this foreign interference in anti-colonial struggles:

“Those who are not under brutal military occupation have no right to judge the manner in which [oppressed peoples] confront colonizers.”