Overview: A patchwork of groups with differing aims
In the months since Hamas’s grip on Gaza intensified conflict with rival factions and external mediators, a patchwork of armed groups has emerged. These factions range from clan-based militias and criminal-network militias to newly formed paramilitary groups. Some have reportedly received support from regional powers, including Israel, as part of broader efforts to shape security arrangements, reduce violence, and eventually stabilize governance in Gaza. The mushrooming of these groups reflects a complex landscape where local grievances, protection needs, and strategic calculations intersect with international peace efforts.
The central question for policymakers is whether and how these diverse actors can be integrated into a credible and durable peace framework. Their different origins—family ties, criminal enterprise, or political-military ambition—mean they bring mixed incentives to the table. Some view any settlement as an opportunity to secure resources, autonomy, or influence; others insist on formal recognition, oversight, and a stake in post-conflict governance. The result is a volatile mix that could either soften the transition to peace or complicate it through competition and fragmentation.
Potential roles under a Gaza peace plan
Several scenarios have been floated by mediators and security experts as peace talks progress:
- Security provisioners. Some groups could be absorbed into a broader security framework, providing local protection in exchange for demobilization or integration into a civilian-military structure. This would require verifiable disarmament, robust oversight, and transparent funding to prevent continued parallel command chains.
- Local governance partners. If a roadmap includes local governance reforms, certain militias might take on roles in service delivery—water, sanitation, electricity restoration, and urban policing—under civilian authorities, subject to strict accountability mechanisms.
- Guardians of ceasefires. In volatile regions, armed groups sometimes operate as guarantors of truce pacts with monitoring and reporting duties. This role could stabilize ceasefires if tied to credible international monitoring and rapid escalation procedures.
- Limits to external backing. International stakeholders may demand that any official role be deployed within a multilateral legal framework, with borders and rules of engagement clearly defined to prevent spillover violence or cross-border attacks.
Obstacles and risks
Integrating anti-Hamas factions into a peace framework is laden with challenges. Fragmentation within the groups themselves can undermine unified messaging and complicate negotiations. Rival factions may be reluctant to cede influence, creating a risk of intra-Gaza power struggles that could erupt into renewed violence. External sponsorship—whether overt or covert—adds another layer of complexity, potentially entangling the peace process in regional rivalries beyond Gaza’s borders.
Humanitarian and governance concerns loom large. In many cases these groups operate outside formal accountability systems, with varying levels of legitimacy among residents. Ensuring human rights protections, civilian safety, and non-discrimination in any future role will be essential to sustaining public support for a peace settlement. Donor communities and international organizations will likely insist on transparent budgeting, anti-corruption safeguards, and clear lines of authority to prevent the emergence of shadow governance structures that can erode trust in the peace process.
International mediation and the path forward
Peace brokers face the delicate task of balancing security needs with political legitimacy. A credible peace plan would require: a credible disarmament and reintegration framework, a timetable for security sector reform, and a mechanism for continuous dialogue with grassroots communities and armed groups alike. Confidence-building measures—such as humanitarian aid corridors, ceasefires, and inclusive political consultations—could help to bridge gaps between residents, armed factions, and governing bodies.
Public messaging will be pivotal. Clear communication about the goals of any role for anti-Hamas groups—emphasizing civilian protection, rule of law, and equitable services—can bolster support for a durable agreement. Conversely, ambiguity or perceived favoritism risks fueling resentment and undermining trust in the peace process. As negotiations advance, the international community will likely demand verifiable benchmarks, independent monitoring, and a robust plan for disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration to reduce the likelihood of relapse into violence.
Why this matters to residents of Gaza
For Gazans, the question is whether these arrangements translate into safer streets, stable electricity and water supply, reliable healthcare, and real hope for the future. The ultimate test will be whether the peace plan can translate into day-to-day improvements and a credible political horizon that excludes violence as a means to address grievances. If anti-Hamas factions are to play a future role, it must be within a transparent, inclusive process that prioritizes civilian welfare and long-term peace over the interests of any single group.
