Eurasia Press & News
Since the most devastating Israeli war in history against the Palestinian people was launched in October 2023, Hamas, which has ruled Gaza since 2007, has been forced into an unprecedented political and strategic corner.
Israel’s response to Hamas’s deadly attacks that month, which killed 1,200 Israelis, quickly escalated into a genocidal war, aimed not only at the group’s military positions and leadership hideouts, but also the movement’s infrastructure and social networks.
Now, with Israel ordering a full takeover of Gaza as part of a five-point plan that includes disarming Hamas, demilitarising the territory, and ensuring neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority rule, the organisation’s very survival is at risk.
In the ruins of Gaza’s neighbourhoods and amid the echo of airstrikes, conversations about the “day after” have become as common as discussions about food shortages and electricity cuts.
For Palestinians, this is not just an abstract diplomatic term; it is a question that could reshape their future for generations to come.
This debate reached a boiling point with the French-Saudi international conference held in New York at the end of July (a summit many described as historic), not for the promises of reconstruction, but for the stark conditions placed on Hamas’s political survival.
Leaders and officials from dozens of countries and organisations gathered under the United Nations’ sponsorship, issuing a final statement that sent shockwaves through Palestinian politics.
Clause 11 of the “New York Declaration” was the sharpest dagger for Hamas: governance, law enforcement, and security across all Palestinian territories should be in the sole hands of the Palestinian Authority.
The declaration went further, openly welcoming the PA’s “one-state, one-government, one-law, one-gun” policy, pledging international support to disarm and demobilise all other armed groups, and specifically calling on Hamas to end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the PA.
It set this as a prerequisite for the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.
For Hamas, which has built its identity around armed resistance since its founding in the late 1980s, this was more than a policy statement; it was a demand to dismantle its raison d’être.
Between weapons and political survival
Hamas’s rise from a grassroots Islamist movement to Gaza’s governing authority was cemented by two events: its surprise electoral victory in 2006 and its armed takeover of the Strip in 2007.
Since then, it has maintained a tight grip on power, relying on its military wing as both a deterrent against Israel and a symbol of defiance for Palestinians frustrated with the Palestinian Authority’s strategy of negotiations.
But the Israeli blockade, deepening political division, and the human cost of repeated wars have blurred the line between governance and resistance.
For some Palestinians, Hamas is still the last standing force willing to confront Israel militarily; for others, it is the main reason they live under siege and repeated bombardment.
Hussam al-Dajani, a political analyst based in Gaza, sees the post-war scenarios as an existential challenge.
“Some international parties want Hamas to disarm or integrate its weapons into a national security structure in exchange for political participation,” he told The New Arab.
“But for Hamas, its weapons are not just a security tool – they are a symbol of its identity. Relinquishing them would be seen by their base as a betrayal of the martyrs’ sacrifices.”
Al-Dajani said the movement faces a painful split within its own ranks. One faction argues that changing regional conditions demand a recalibration of the armed confrontation strategy; another insists that any concession on weapons would lead to the movement’s eventual collapse.
“Hamas is being forced to choose: become a limited political player in a broader Palestinian system, or risk returning to isolation and perpetual confrontation. Neither option comes without enormous cost,” he added.
The international plan and its regional calculations
The French-Saudi initiative is not merely about rebuilding homes and schools. It proposes a comprehensive governance and security overhaul for Gaza, possibly involving Arab states and even a multinational force to manage the Strip during a transitional period.
There would be strict monitoring of border crossings and mechanisms to prevent arms smuggling, measures that Hamas sees as an attempt to choke off its military capacity permanently.
In Ramallah, political analyst Esmat Mansour believes Israel will do everything to ensure Hamas never regains its military strength.
“Israel’s goal is to neutralise Hamas without having to reoccupy Gaza. The international community wants to reshape Gaza’s political and security reality, potentially with an international monitoring force and restrictions on movement that make it impossible for Hamas to rebuild,” he told TNA.
Arab states, he argues, are taking a calculated position.
“They prioritise stability over Hamas’s continued military dominance. But without Palestinian consensus on who governs Gaza, these arrangements could create a dangerous political vacuum; a recipe for factional conflict,” he explained.
Inside Hamas, the mood is a volatile mix of defiance and unease, shaped by both the devastation on the ground and the political storm gathering abroad. In closed-door meetings held in undisclosed locations across the Strip, senior figures weigh scenarios that, until recently, would have been dismissed as impossible.
The central question is whether the movement can emerge intact, politically and structurally, if it trades its weapons for international recognition and a share in post-war governance.
Some of these discussions are heated, according to insiders. Military leaders warn that dismantling the armed wing would strip Hamas of the very leverage that has kept it relevant in negotiations and feared by its adversaries.
Political operatives counter that an uncompromising stance could invite isolation not only from the international community, but also from Arab capitals that once tolerated its position. The tension between these camps reflects a broader identity crisis: Is Hamas first and foremost a resistance movement that governs, or a political authority that resists?
A senior Hamas official, speaking anonymously, accuses certain Arab governments of “colluding” with Western powers to engineer the movement’s decline under the guise of peacebuilding.
“They want to turn Gaza into a demilitarised zone under the pretext of reconstruction. But the future of the resistance will not be decided in foreign capitals – it will be decided here, on our land, by our people,” he told TNA, his tone blending anger with weary certainty.
This distrust is rooted in decades of Palestinian political experience. Within Hamas, the memory of Oslo looms large, an agreement that promised peace but, in their view, entrenched occupation and division.
To the movement’s leadership, the current proposals for disarmament echo that era’s false assurances, only now dressed in the language of humanitarian relief and state-building.
While rejecting outright disarmament, the official concedes that the war’s aftermath will inevitably force Hamas into a period of political recalibration. The scale of destruction, the humanitarian crisis, and the new regional dynamics cannot be ignored.
“We are open to political solutions that respect our rights and don’t come at the expense of the resistance. But history has shown, from Oslo until now, that without the leverage of resistance, no political process survives Israeli pressure,” he said.
He explained that this does not mean Hamas is unwilling to adapt. There are internal discussions about what a “hybrid” model of political participation and limited military capacity might look like, as well as how to protect the core of its armed wing under any new arrangements.
Yet, for many inside the movement, even such a compromise risks eroding the trust of its base.
The official warns that foreign powers often underestimate the symbolic role of weapons in Palestinian political life.
“For our people, these arms are not just tools of war; they are the last guarantee that our rights will not be traded away. The day we surrender to them without securing our freedom is the day we abandon our mission.”
Public opinion, reconciliation, and the road ahead
In Gaza’s shattered neighbourhoods, opinions on Hamas’s future are sharply divided.
Salem Abu Yousef, a farmer from Gaza City, says the movement has brought nothing but hardship.
“Hamas brought us the blockade, the wars, and destruction. I want them gone. We need leaders who will build, not drag us into war every few years,” he told TNA.
Others remain loyal, albeit with caveats. Umm Muhammad Abu Jaber, displaced from Beit Hanoun, said, “Hamas stood up to the occupation when no one else did. But now they must act wisely to save what’s left of Gaza, even if that means a long truce or just a political role”.
For political analyst Hani al-Masri, the way forward is clear. “As an armed group outside the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Hamas will struggle to survive under any international arrangement after the war. The only viable path is reconciliation – agreeing to place its weapons under a national umbrella linked to a recognised authority,” he told TNA.
This does not mean abandoning the idea of resistance altogether, he says, but reframing it to suit current realities, through political work, mass mobilisation, and participation in fair elections.
Al-Masri warns that outright rejection of any settlement would be dangerous.
“If new governance arrangements improve daily life in Gaza without Hamas, its popularity will erode. Isolation and another military confrontation would become almost inevitable,” he said.
The war has exposed Hamas’s vulnerabilities but also underscored its resilience. Israeli and Western assessments suggest its military infrastructure has been degraded, yet the movement’s ability to shape Palestinian politics remains.
Whether it becomes a marginalised actor or adapts into a political force within a restructured Palestinian landscape will depend on both its own choices and those forced upon it by Israel’s new war strategy and international pressure.
For now, the movement clings to its founding narrative, that resistance is the only guarantee against Israeli domination, while confronting the possibility that its survival may require compromises once deemed unthinkable.
In the rubble of Gaza, the battle over Hamas’s future is just beginning.
