Last week, as Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip intensified, United States presidential envoy Steven Witkoff announced on social media that the “ceasefire” was entering its second phase. In the following days, the administration of US President Donald Trump unveiled a peace board overseeing the interim administration of Gaza, made up of a foreign executive committee and Palestinian experts.
The setup reflects Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s desire that neither Hamas nor the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority (PA) be involved in Gaza’s future. Although the latter is mentioned in Trump’s “peace plan,” he would first have to pass a set of undisclosed reforms to have any role in Gaza.
In effect this means that even Fatah can be prevented from returning to rule the Gaza Strip under the pretense that these vague reforms have not been made.
The problem with the current system and Israel’s insistence on “no Hamas, no Fatah” is that they reflect a profound ignorance of the fabric of Palestinian society, its politics and history. The idea that a Palestinian political entity can be created by outside forces and fully integrated into the business of managing Palestinian affairs is unrealistic.
Over the past 77 years, various Palestinian national movements and revolutions have emerged, united by a common denominator: the rejection of the Israeli colonial presence. No Palestinian group, regardless of its form, has ever publicly admitted to joining the Israeli settlement project.
Within the framework of resistance, a collective Palestinian consciousness was created, political parties were born, and the course of public opinion was defined.
The tools and methods adopted by different sections of Palestinian society and political groups may differ, but they are all equally committed to the Palestinian cause and Palestinian rights.
Fatah and Hamas remain the two major political factions of Palestinian society. While Fatah emerged as the dominant national liberation movement before changing its political trajectory following the Oslo Accords, Hamas has maintained its commitment to resistance since its founding. Between these two currents and other smaller groups, the Palestinian social fabric naturally rejects any leadership or existence that operates outside the framework of national independence or accepts foreign patronage.
Israel has chosen to ignore this deeply rooted reality, trying to bypass it by imposing artificial facts on the ground. As a result, “local alternatives” to governance in Gaza are constantly being sought.
Throughout the war, Israel sought to empower certain individuals and groups in the hope that they might play a role in the postwar period. Many of them were socially marginalized before the war and some have extensive criminal records. There is an example Yasser Abu ShababA member of the Tarabin gang, who spent years in prison on drug-related charges and who received heavy Israeli support during the war to form his own militia.
He looted humanitarian aid and collaborated with the occupation in various ways in Rafah, including securing passage for the Israeli army. after him was killed On December 4, there were celebrations in Gaza; His own gang issued a statement condemning him. Israelite attempts to connect with and empower other clans have also ended badly.
Prominent families and clans have repeatedly condemned the actions of individual members who have decided to collaborate with Israel in public statements. They have withdrawn protections and ostracized collaborators while reaffirming the Palestinian clan’s firm commitment to the Palestinian national struggle.
This refusal reflects the failure of Israeli policy to create any spatial extension aligned with its project. It also confirms Israel’s inability to erase Palestinian national memory or break the collective will despite genocide, starvation and displacement.
Similar is the situation in the West Coast. There, for three decades, the Fatah-dominated PA has co-operated in security with occupation. As a result, its validity today is extremely low. Accordingly Recent pollsThe PA has just a 23 percent approval rating in the West Bank, while its president, Mahmoud Abbas, has 16 percent.
It is important to note here that despite the PA’s close security ties to the occupation, it has failed to curb Palestinian resistance in the West Bank. In the years preceding the genocidal war, the West Bank saw the rise of armed formations that were independent of the traditional factions of Fatah and Hamas, such as the Arin al-Usud (Lions Den) in Nablus and the Jenin Brigades.
These groups were organized by the youth and received broad public support. Their resistance campaigns demonstrate the persistence of an approach to armed struggle outside traditional structures and support among the Palestinian people.
Israel and its Western allies who are trying to create a new governance mechanism for Gaza fail to understand that in the Palestinian context, legitimacy matters. This is something that cannot be created by a foreign council or an Israeli-sponsored militia. Because legitimacy in Palestine derives from resistance, which binds national history and identity together.
Any attempt to bypass this reality will fail, as it will turn Gaza into an area of perpetual chaos, internal conflict and comprehensive security collapse. It would also dismantle the legacy of Trump’s deal and expose the current system without the political pageantry to cover up the consequences of Israeli-enforced genocide.
The only solution that guarantees stability is full Palestinian administrative independence, a clear path towards the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state, based solely on the will of the Palestinian people in all their diversity and inclusion.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.