As negotiations commence on the remaining phases of the ceasefire, we face two potential scenarios in the coming months. In one scenario, the complete implementation of the deal sees a rehabilitated Hamas retaining power in Gaza, declaring victory despite the widespread destruction and devastation. In the other scenario, Benjamin Netanyahu disrupts the continuation of the ceasefire, sacrificing the remaining hostages and soldiers.
Anyone hoping for a third scenario—where the captives return without Hamas declaring victory—must understand that this path relies on the Palestinian Authority, despite its deficiencies. At present, the second scenario seems the most plausible. It is hard to believe that the current government would survive anything short of eliminating Hamas due to its reliance on extreme right-wing factions. And if there is one thing unmistakable about Netanyahu, it is that his political survival is his top priority, far surpassing any other concern. Hence, the war is likely to resume and persist until the elections.
The situation is far from simple. On paper, the Palestinian Authority is committed to maintaining peace with Israel and stands as the sole political alternative to Hamas among Palestinians. However, it suffers from a reputation marred by corruption and unpopularity. Its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, lacks a mandate nearly two decades after his election. The PA pays terrorist families to maintain calm and employs textbooks that fail to promote peace. Yet the PA, expelled from Gaza by Hamas in 2007, remains a preferable option compared to a Hamas-governed Strip.
After all, it was only after Hamas seized control of Gaza that Israel and Egypt imposed a blockade on the region. The PA has battled Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Jenin on behalf of Israel with partial success, often facing fierce accusations of treason from its own populace. Regrettably, human nature disinclined us from settling for the least unfavorable option. We tend to search for a choice that appears good. In the tumultuous landscape of the Middle East, the least bad option often emerges as the best possible outcome.
Should Israel adopt a pragmatic approach, both the moderate Arab nations and Western powers would be inclined to invest substantial resources in rebuilding the PA and the Gaza Strip. A coalition of Arab countries, Western powers, and international organizations should oversee the transfer of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, ensuring transparency and responsible governance.
Israel needs a commitment that the Gaza Strip will not once again become a launchpad for attacks. This could involve establishing an international peacekeeping force or robust security arrangements with neighboring nations. Gulf states might even provide troops. Furthermore, revitalizing Gaza’s economy is imperative to provide jobs, infrastructure, and essential services, necessitating significant investment from both regional and global players, contingent on the removal of Hamas.
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
Comprehensive reforms must be undertaken to restore trust among Palestinians and reasonable Israelis, including tackling corruption, reforming the education system, ending policies that encourage violence, and initiating political renewal. Developing a succession plan for Abbas is also crucial.
Over the years, Netanyahu has found an advantage in the division of Palestinian leadership. By splitting the Palestinians into two hostile governments—one in Gaza and the other in the West Bank—he believed that Israel could more easily sidestep demands for an authentic process leading to the formation of a Palestinian state. This is precisely why Netanyahu shuns serious discussions around post-conflict plans for Gaza: he knows such talks inevitably revolve around the PA, notwithstanding confusion about local factions—a gross insult to intelligence.
Furthermore, Netanyahu’s spokespersons often peddle absurd claims that the PA is as problematic as Hamas. Yet, altering Netanyahu’s stance is difficult but not unattainable. While he may lack moral and emotional depth, and perhaps, in my view, patriotism, he is adept at recognizing threats, weighing risks, and minimizing losses.
It’s an almost indisputable fact that even the current ceasefire phase materialized mainly due to Trump’s insistence before assuming office. Israel cannot renew hostilities without American support—diplomatically at the UN, with arms supplies, in the international legal arena, and beyond.
Naturally, Netanyahu endorsing the PA’s takeover plan for Gaza won’t necessarily deter Hamas, which seeks a narrative portraying Israel’s failure to achieve its objectives. Simultaneously, governing the remnants of a demolished Gaza may not appeal to Hamas; the destruction is immense, and numerous residents have realized that life under Hamas’ rule was a grim ordeal of oppression, poverty, and perpetual fear of engaging with Israel.
A recent survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Research indicated declining support for the Hamas offensive on October 7, with 57% of swing voters opposing it, while support remains higher in the West Bank, untouched by the conflict’s direct repercussions. Only around a third of Palestinians expressed willingness to vote for Hamas, skewed by the absence of a formidable PA candidate. Most Palestinians are disenchanted with Abu Mazen.
Ultimately, the Arab world holds significant influence. Moderate allies—from Egypt and Jordan to Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and even Qatar—are likely to back a forward-looking process to replace Hamas if Israel abandons its intransigence. The main objective should be conditioning reconstruction aid on Hamas relinquishing power, even if only temporarily. Negotiations might involve options like exile, disarmament, or a partial merger of Hamas with the PA—challenges to address in due time.
Opportunities may also arise for Israel, including Netanyahu. Should the day-after plan for Gaza accompany a potential normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia, the moderate Israeli opposition could support Netanyahu’s government temporarily, allowing him to distance himself from the far-right factions wreaking havoc (and seeking settlements in Gaza).
While Netanyahu once prioritized his political coalition above all else, if it no longer serves his interests, he will abandon it without hesitation. Should Netanyahu aim for reelection—and naturally, he will—such a scenario, possibly coupled with regional peace, could offer him a chance to shape a legacy with a semblance of positivity.
As it stands, Netanyahu risks being remembered as one of the most calamitous leaders to emerge among the Jewish people. For this transformation to occur, the Trump administration must intervene promptly to facilitate it. The clock is ticking.
Dan Perry (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)