Rising actors in Gaza: who are the anti-Hamas groups?
In the wake of intensified conflict with Hamas, a patchwork of armed actors has emerged in Gaza and neighboring areas. These groups range from clan-based militias to criminal networks and newly formed paramilitary units. While united in their opposition to Hamas, their motives, loyalties, and long-term aims diverge widely, complicating plausible paths toward a stable peace.
Some factions are rooted in longstanding local power structures, including family and tribal networks, while others crystallized around criminal economics or protective duties in volatile border zones. A subset has reportedly attracted backing from external patrons, including regional actors, creating a layered web of influence that could outlast current hostilities.
What they want: a future role in a Gaza peace plan
As international negotiators draft and discuss a Gaza peace framework, several groups are signaling a wish to be stakeholders rather than sidelined spoilers. Their logic hinges on practical legitimacy: if the peace plan envisions security and governance in Gaza, these actors argue they already operate in the spaces where state power is thin and conflict is daily. They insist any durable settlement must incorporate governance layers and security arrangements that reflect the realities on the ground, including groups that control checkpoints, supply routes, or local security.
Risks of incorporating diverse militias
Integrating disparate armed actors into a peace architecture carries significant risks. Fragmented leadership can lead to competing authorities, muddy accountability, and potential clashes over revenue, territory, or influence over humanitarian corridors. If some factions feel excluded from the process, they may resort to violence or coercion to secure leverage. For neighboring states and international donors, the dilemma is how to offer recognition or integration without empowering spoilers or legitimizing coercive power.
Possible pathways to inclusion without surrendering security
Analysts suggest several careful approaches. One option is to establish transitional security arrangements that formalize a unified command structure under a neutral security council. This could include monitored disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) programs tied to economic development, governance reform, and rule-of-law training. A further possibility is creating oversight mechanisms for critical areas such as border crossings, humanitarian aid distribution, and reconstruction projects to ensure accountability while accommodating diverse local actors.
Another pathway is to limit direct political participation to non-violent factions or those committed to a binding code of conduct, with stringent verification and international monitoring. This approach aims to prevent weaponized groups from wielding veto power over ceasefires or peace talks while still acknowledging the governance vacuum in Gaza that has fueled their emergence.
Regional and international stakes
Nearby powers have a vested interest in shaping who participates in Gaza’s future. External support—whether through funding, arms, or political endorsement—can either help stabilize the region or entrench a dangerous asymmetry of power. International mediators must balance encouraging local actors to lay down arms with ensuring that peace terms do not reward coercive security models or entrench territorial control by non-state actors.
Human impact and the road ahead
For civilians living under ongoing conflict, the question of who governs security matters as much as any ceasefire. The density of militant groups heightens the risk of sudden escalations, while the absence of robust governance threatens essential services, livelihoods, and protection. The path forward will likely demand a blend of security guarantees, credible governance structures, and economic revival plans that can unify diverse actors around a shared, non-violent future.
As peace negotiators press ahead, the challenge will be to translate rhetoric about inclusion into concrete steps that prevent ambiguous authority from undermining a durable settlement. The coming weeks are critical for defining who has a legitimate voice in Gaza’s future and how that voice is harmonized with the broader goals of safety, dignity, and self-determination for its people.
