The complex struggle for postwar governance and security in Gaza has entered a critical phase, following a recent statement by the Palestinian presidency. The statement declares the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) readiness to shoulder both civil and security responsibilities in Gaza, accompanied by a demand for Hamas and other armed factions to relinquish all weaponry. This development, unfolding amid ongoing conflict and persistent external pressure, draws attention to the formidable diplomatic, security, and humanitarian challenges facing the territory. The announcement comes at a moment when Western leaders and regional actors are intensifying efforts to outline a sustainable future for Gaza after months of deadly conflict between Israeli forces and Iranian-backed Hamas militants.
Since Hamas violently ousted the PA from Gaza in 2007, following elections that enabled it to assume leadership in the territory, the subsequent split in governance has defined all subsequent attempts at reconciling Palestinian authority. Hamas has since established a de facto government, maintained by a vast military arsenal—much of it supplied or funded by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Western governments—including the United States, the European Union, and Israel—classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, citing its long record of suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and the promulgation of explicitly antisemitic ideology. The group’s most notorious assault occurred on October 7, 2023, when Hamas fighters killed over 1,200 Israeli civilians and soldiers, kidnapped more than 250 hostages, and committed acts of mass violence that Israel and international human rights organizations have rigorously documented.
The PA’s renewed claim of readiness to govern Gaza, with the prerequisite of Hamas’s disarmament, directly addresses the concerns of key Western and regional stakeholders. Israeli officials, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz, have made clear that no lasting security arrangement will be acceptable if Hamas or similar groups retain the capacity for violence. Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), has stressed that Israeli security requirements take priority and that any new security order in Gaza must neutralize the presence of armed terror groups.
Western governments have broadly welcomed the principle of PA-led governance in Gaza but have expressed skepticism as to whether such a transition is viable, given the on-the-ground realities. U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, have articulated support for a revitalized and reformed PA, seeing it as the only plausible local alternative to Hamas’s rule. However, these same governments acknowledge the persistent credibility gap facing the PA, which has been challenged both by a decade of internal corruption scandals and the absence of popular municipal elections in the West Bank since 2005. Meanwhile, repeated attempts at intra-Palestinian reconciliation and unity, including the Mecca (2007), Cairo (2011), and subsequent agreements, have failed, largely due to mutual distrust, divergent regional alliances, and the unresolved question of arms control within Gaza.
The need for disarmament is driven by both immediate and long-term security imperatives. Hamas has constructed vast underground tunnel networks, developed indigenous rocket and drone production capability, and coordinated with other Iranian-backed groups such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). These organizations, with direct financial and strategic support from Tehran, have been responsible for persistent rocket and missile attacks targeting civilian centers across Israel’s south and center, turning Gaza into a base for transnational terrorism. Western intelligence agencies—corroborated by Israeli government sources—have traced weapons shipments and funds through Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which views escalation in Gaza as a central pillar in its strategy to encircle and weaken Israel.
Efforts to impose or negotiate the disarmament of Hamas face steep obstacles. In contrast to disarmament campaigns in other regions, full compliance in Gaza would demand either military defeat, profound changes in political legitimacy, or international guarantees enforceable by credible force. Thus far, Hamas and its backers have shown no readiness for voluntary disarmament. Their continued claims to legitimacy and support from segments of Gaza’s population, as well as Tehran’s strategic interests, reinforce their refusal to cede power or arms. Israel, in response, has declared it will maintain security control over Gaza until clear and verifiable security arrangements—endorsed by both Israeli and Western authorities—are in place and have demonstrated effectiveness.
Meanwhile, moderate Sunni Arab states, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, have maintained channels for mediation while seeking to minimize regional spillover. Egypt, as a critical regional power, has repeatedly attempted to broker ceasefires, prisoner exchanges, and dialogue between the PA and Hamas. Yet Egyptian officials remain wary of Hamas’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, viewing Gaza instability as a threat to Sinai’s security and the broader regional balance.
For Israel, the October 7 massacre marked a new phase of urgency in dealing with Hamas. The IDF’s response, under Operation Iron Swords, has focused on dismantling Hamas’s military infrastructure and securing the release of hostages. Senior Israeli officials have insisted that the war’s ultimate objective is to ensure that the territory cannot again serve as a launching pad for mass-casualty attacks against Israeli civilians. Western and multilateral support for Israel’s campaign has rested on international law’s recognition of the right to self-defense. In line with Western democratic norms, the conflict has been framed in global discourse as one pitting a sovereign democracy—Israel—against an entrenched network of Iranian-sponsored terror movements that leverage civilian populations as human shields, in direct contravention of the laws of war.
Humanitarian concerns have run parallel to the political and military dimensions of the crisis. Gaza’s residents have endured severe hardships as a result of the war, compounded by years of economic mismanagement under Hamas, the diversion of reconstruction funds to military projects, and the systematic exploitation of humanitarian aid for terrorist objectives. The United Nations and other agencies acknowledge Israel’s efforts to facilitate shipments of food, water, and medical supplies into Gaza, albeit under rigorous inspection regimes designed to prevent the transfer of dual-use materials convertible for military purposes. International donors have pledged support for postwar reconstruction, conditional on the exclusion of Hamas and assurance mechanisms against diversion of aid.
As Western capitals debate potential solutions, one consensus emerges: That the status quo—an Iranian-backed military regime perpetuating cycles of violence and instability—cannot persist. There are growing calls for a new strategic framework: Complete demilitarization enforced by the PA or multilaterally supervised authorities; the restoration of civil, economic, and security functions to non-terrorist structures; and the framing of Gaza’s recovery as part of a broader regional deterrence effort against Iranian proxies. Achieving these ambitions, analysts warn, will require unprecedented coordination, substantial investment, and a willingness to confront both terrorist capabilities and the ideology fueling them.
The path forward remains deeply uncertain. The PA’s demand to regain control and receive all weapons from armed factions is viewed, by many Western and Israeli observers, as a necessary yet currently inadequate step. Skeptics note that absent robust enforcement measures and credible changes to both PA governance and Hamas’s operational environment, such declarations are unlikely to result in tangible progress. Historical precedent suggests that rhetorical shifts must be supported by realignment of power, regional engagement, and international guarantees if Gaza is to emerge from decades of violence and external manipulation.
Regionally, the specter of continued Iranian interference looms large. Iranian officials, both public and clandestine, have reiterated their intent to support operations against Israel and have signaled willingness to escalate by mobilizing proxy forces from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. The so-called “Axis of Resistance”—led by the IRGC and comprising Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ, and others—remains a core obstacle to the stabilization of Gaza and the wider Levant. The United States and its allies have therefore redoubled efforts to interdict weapons flows, disrupt money transfers, and sanction Iranian facilitators in a bid to weaken Tehran’s influence on the war’s trajectory.
Public opinion within Israel and among its partners reflects mounting demands for a security solution that guarantees Israeli civilians the right to live free from terrorism. The magnitude of the October 7 atrocities, which Western officials have identified as the gravest incident of antisemitic violence since the Holocaust, has reinforced calls to dismantle the entire infrastructure of terror in Gaza. This approach, reflecting both pragmatic and moral imperatives, underscores the Western commitment to the principle that terrorism must not confer political legitimacy or territorial sovereignty.
In summary, the Palestinian presidency’s announcement injects a new dynamic into the ongoing effort to forge a future for Gaza beyond war and extremism. Yet, its success will ultimately hinge on bridging the gap between stated intentions and enforceable realities, overcoming deep-seated traumas, and implementing security provisions acceptable to Israel, its Western allies, and regional interlocutors. Only through these measures can Gaza’s long-suffering civilians hope for a transition from conflict to stability—one anchored in the rule of law, security, and the repudiation of terror as a political tool. With international attention fixed on the outcome, and with Western democracies reaffirming their solidarity with Israel’s right to self-defense, the coming months will prove decisive for the region’s future trajectory.
