After the War: The Race Over Gaza’s Future and the Authority of the Day After

As political and military pressures on Gaza continue to escalate, current developments raise pressing questions about the future governance of the territory and the form of authority that may assume control in the post-war phase.

Speaking to Sky News Arabia’s newsroom, political researcher Tamara Haddad linked the persistence of Hamas’s influence in Gaza to Israel’s ongoing escalation and military expansion. She argued that the situation has entered a new stage where regional calculations intersect with arrangements for the “day after,” amid the absence of a common ground capable of producing a sustainable settlement.

Hamas Between Military Pressure and Negotiation Demands

Haddad believes Hamas now recognizes that its grip on governance in Gaza faces a serious challenge, and that maintaining the current reality means continued military escalation. From this perspective, she interprets the movement’s demand for guarantees related to halting escalation and assassinations. Yet she stresses that Hamas also understands Israel will not cease its military operations or geographic and security expansion inside Gaza as long as Hamas retains its security and military influence. In her assessment, Israel will continue escalation as long as Hamas remains active and influential in the internal scene of the territory. She describes the negotiation track as one moving between the pressures of fire and the gains of negotiation, with Hamas seeking guarantees amid growing complexities.

Egyptian Moves to Confront New Scenarios

The researcher points out that Egypt has come to realize, in her view, that Israel is heading toward a larger project inside Gaza, citing Israeli statements about promoting the idea of “voluntary migration.” According to Haddad, Egypt’s position aims to remove the pretext tied to Hamas’s presence and weapons in Gaza by pushing toward a different political landscape based on Palestinian national consensus. This would allow another party to manage the “day after” phase. She sees this vision as one of restructuring Gaza’s security, political, administrative, and military systems through an entity other than Hamas, entrusted with managing the territory within a framework that enjoys Palestinian consensus.

Betting on Iran and Shifts in Hamas’s Discourse

Haddad argues that Hamas has been influenced by Iranian leadership statements linking negotiations between Iran and the United States to the Gaza file. However, she considers reliance on this path a mistaken bet. She notes that Hamas’s rhetoric has shifted significantly: after leaning toward handing some responsibilities to a national or administrative committee, the movement reverted to a different discourse following Iran’s positions, coupled with its sense that Gaza’s future governance may not remain under its direct responsibility. From her perspective, ongoing regional changes reflect a trend toward shaping a new reality in Gaza, moving away from the traditional formulas that have defined the situation in recent years.