Hamas continues to maintain control over most of the Gaza Strip, while Israel retains authority over certain key areas. As international oversight discussions gain traction, the Palestinian Authority is positioning itself as a potential alternative governance model.
After nearly 16 months of conflict in Gaza, various proposals for the territory's postwar governance have been debated among politicians and analysts, yet no definitive direction has emerged amid ongoing hostilities.
With a fragile cease-fire in place and negotiations between Israel and Hamas underway to extend the truce, four competing models for Gaza's future governance are beginning to take shape.
Despite being weakened, Hamas remains the dominant force in Gaza and is working to solidify its authority. The cease-fire agreement stipulates a gradual Israeli withdrawal from Gaza; however, Israeli troops still occupy significant areas. Some right-wing Israeli leaders advocate for an expansion of military control, even at the risk of reigniting conflict.
In a different approach, a group of foreign security contractors, invited by Israel, is currently managing a checkpoint on a vital route in northern Gaza, screening vehicles for weapons. Some Israeli officials suggest this could evolve into broader international oversight involving Arab states rather than private contractors.
Meanwhile, in southern Gaza, representatives from the Palestinian Authority have begun staffing a border crossing with Egypt, collaborating with European security officials. The Authority, which lost control of Gaza to Hamas in 2007, aims to replicate this effort throughout the territory over time.
The future governance model for Gaza remains uncertain, heavily influenced by upcoming discussions between President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Additionally, Saudi Arabia's potential agreement to establish formal ties with Israel could significantly impact the governance structure in Gaza.
Hamas has demonstrated its ongoing dominance by showcasing its authority during recent hostage releases, with armed militants present at these events. The group is also attempting to restore order in Gaza by managing security operations and municipal recovery efforts.
For many Israelis, the prospect of Hamas remaining in power is unacceptable. Some may consider acceptance contingent on the release of all remaining hostages, while others, particularly on the political right, advocate for renewed military action to eliminate Hamas's influence, even at the cost of hostages' lives.
If Hamas retains power, rebuilding Gaza may prove challenging without foreign assistance, as many international donors are likely to hesitate in providing support unless Hamas relinquishes control. In mediated talks, Hamas representatives have indicated a willingness to transfer administrative responsibilities to a committee of Palestinian technocrats, though it is unlikely they would disband their armed wing.
Following the cease-fire, Israel has maintained a buffer zone along Gaza's borders, which it must eventually evacuate to secure the release of all hostages. However, this prospect is contentious among key members of Netanyahu's coalition, who may prefer to extend or even expand Israeli control to preserve their political standing.
To facilitate a resolution, Netanyahu may require support from the Trump administration, which has expressed a desire for an extended cease-fire to ensure the release of hostages. Resuming hostilities could jeopardize potential diplomatic agreements with Saudi Arabia, a significant goal for Netanyahu.
As Israeli troops withdrew from parts of the Netzarim Corridor, foreign security contractors stepped in to manage security operations, screening traffic for weapons to hinder Hamas's rearmament efforts. This initiative, currently limited in scope, could expand with backing from leading Arab states.
The Palestinian Authority, which has been sidelined since 2007, still governs parts of the West Bank and is viewed as the primary alternative to Hamas. However, Israeli leaders often criticize the Authority as corrupt and ineffective, making it unlikely for them to endorse a significant role for it in Gaza at this time.
Despite this, recent developments indicate a potential shift, as the Authority has begun operations at the Rafah crossing, suggesting some flexibility among Israeli leadership regarding its involvement. This could pave the way for a broader role for the Authority, possibly in collaboration with foreign peacekeepers or contractors.