Who Will Govern Gaza?

Source: Palestinians who moved south on Israeli orders during the war return to their homes in the central Gaza Strip as part of a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, January 27, 2025. RAMAZAN ABED/REUTERS

The three-phase ceasefire agreement signed after 15 months of conflict marks a new era in the regional dynamics of the Middle East. However, the durability of the ceasefire remains uncertain, exacerbating geopolitical instability and contributing to ongoing ambiguity regarding security and governance in the region.

While the ceasefire offers a temporary respite for the people of Gaza, it remains inherently fragile. Israel’s withdrawal from the Philadelphia and Netzarim Corridors and its authorization for Palestinian residents to return to their homes hold symbolic significance. Nevertheless, this also represents a departure from Israel’s initial military objectives. Conversely, Hamas perceives the ceasefire as merely a temporary pause and anticipates the resumption of hostilities.

From Israel’s perspective, the war has evidently been a strategic failure. Despite Israel’s intensive military operations, Hamas has rapidly reorganized both politically and militarily. Additionally, a growing perception among the Israeli public that the war has been unsuccessful is placing the government under significant domestic political pressure. The indecisiveness of Prime Minister Netanyahu's administration throughout this process, coupled with increasing international scrutiny, has intensified both domestic and foreign policy risks.

Although Hamas has suffered heavy losses, it persists due to its organizational resilience and ideological endurance. The group aims to gain political legitimacy and expand its regional influence. However, the significant depletion of its military capacity and weaponry raises questions about its ability to achieve these objectives. Furthermore, Hamas's lack of international legitimacy and its ideological rift with the Palestinian Authority indicate continued divisions regarding the future governance of Gaza. The Palestinian Authority’s loss of legitimacy among Palestinians, juxtaposed with Hamas’s rising popularity, further weakens prospects for a unified Palestinian leadership.

With the ceasefire in place, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have tied their normalization process with Israel to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Meanwhile, for Iran and Turkey, the Gaza and Palestine issue represents a matter of regional strategic supremacy. Turkey’s military and political manoeuvres in Syria, along with its rhetoric against Israel, signal an escalation in regional geopolitical tensions. Egypt and Jordan, on the other hand, are primarily focused on preventing mass migration from Gaza.

There are two primary scenarios for Gaza’s future governance: a multinational administration or direct Israeli military control. While a multinational administration could potentially enhance international support, Hamas’s presence and the broader regional instability pose significant challenges to its feasibility. Conversely, Israeli military control could provoke intense regional and international backlash, potentially making Israel a target for terrorist attacks.

Neither scenario offers a fundamental resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A lasting solution in the region necessitates reconstructing Gaza’s economic and social infrastructure and establishing a legitimate, internationally recognized governing authority. Ideally, this would involve the creation of an independent Palestinian state. However, a temporary federal or confederal arrangement in cooperation with Israel may be required if this is not immediately viable. Achieving long-term regional stability depends on pursuing such an approach.