As the new millennium began, the United States and the European Union pursued a familiar fantasy of resolving the Middle East conflict through a rapid action plan. Their aim was for the Palestinian Authority to assume responsibility once the Israeli military offensive that had turned the Gaza Strip into a devastated landscape ended. The plan argued that establishing authority was a necessary step to start a peace process, while it also asserted that Hamas should have no role in Gaza after the war or any political horizon until the bombs stopped. Israel pledged to dismantle Islamist militias, but such plans often struggled to fit the nuanced Palestinian reality.
It becomes hard to predict what will be left. Hamas is a movement that has governed Gaza since 2007, consolidating power after a hard-fought election—the first in which it participated. The outcome left opponents frustrated as the group sought to retain control. There is no reliable public tally of how many militants were eliminated, but Israeli security sources cited by a major UK newspaper suggested numbers around a few thousand casualties among Hamas members in the fighting that began in the south and resulted in significant losses, including many officers. About 1,200 people died in the initial clash that launched the latest round of conflict on October 7.
Several leaders, especially in northern Gaza, were killed or sidelined, yet Hamas did not lose control of the Strip or its political and military hierarchy, with leaders like Yahya Sinwar, Muhammad Deif, and others continuing to wield influence. With strong public support in parts of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and diaspora camps, Hamas has the capacity to persist—even if battlefield gains wane—raising questions about how a future political settlement could unfold.
That is where Western capitals face real dilemmas. Washington and Brussels label Hamas a terrorist organization, seeking to exclude it from any future post-war structure in Gaza and from talks about resolving the broader Palestinian question. Some observers asked who would lead Palestine if elections were held today. A veteran academic and former president of a major Palestinian university suggested Hamas is perceived by many as the primary representative of Palestinian interests because the ANP lacks broad public support. He noted that the ANP appears not to be a focus of people’s hopes for their future.
More Popular Than the Palestinian Authority
Among most Palestinians, Hamas is seen as the main force resisting Israeli occupation and the Islamist political project. Although its popularity had already declined before the war, Hamas still outpolled the ANP in Ramallah. A major poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research indicated that, just before the October 7 events, Mahmoud Abbas might have secured around one-third of votes while Ismail Haniya could have received the majority share. Since then, support has shifted further toward Hamas. The rise is attributed not only to Hamas’s ability to mobilize attention around the conflict but also to public perceptions of the ANP’s governance, which many view as corrupt, authoritarian, and ineffective. Critics argue that Israel’s control over the occupation remains the dominant force behind the situation, a pattern some say the ANP has not decisively challenged since the Gaza crisis began.
In Brussels, the latest poll results have tempered the perception of the ANP as a legitimate steward of future Gaza governance. A strong majority want Abbas to step down, and there is ongoing debate about who should take the lead. European officials stressed that the path to peace needs a credible and legitimate leadership in Gaza, even as they acknowledge imperfections in the ANP. They noted that there is currently little appetite for immediate elections under the present conditions and that peace requires practical steps that can gain local legitimacy.
In Washington, the idea of an enlarged ANP taking responsibility for Gaza has appeal, though the concept remains ill-defined. The notion of a revitalized ANP as a potential steward of the territory has not yet become a concrete plan, and many involved acknowledge that transferring power in the midst of a fragile political process would be risky. A senior Palestinian official highlighted that any such move would likely require a broader, political framework with Israel and other stakeholders, rather than a quick, unilateral transfer of power in a tense moment.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has rejected European and American proposals that would effectively create new leadership in the occupied territories. He argues that any step toward a unified Palestinian leadership would undermine Israel’s security and contradict its long-standing goals. His own policy favors Israel assuming control over all security matters in Gaza for an unspecified period, a position he has publicly endorsed in recent weeks.
Integration of Hamas into the PLO
Palestinian civil society has suggested two possible routes to resolve the current stalemate. One is a new round of elections, potentially the first in nearly twenty years. The other is a reconstituted unity framework that brings Hamas into a shared leadership structure with Fatah and other groups under the Palestine Liberation Organization. This has been attempted before, most notably in early 2021, but pressure from regional and international players ended that effort with limited success.
For any path to succeed, Hamas would need to align with a broader, credible political process. The group’s past behavior shows it is capable of resisting proposals it does not trust, or that threaten its leadership and base. What is clear is that the question of who governs Gaza remains central to any viable peace plan. Regional partners have urged the Palestinians to decide their own leadership without external imposition, while others insist that genuine progress must be anchored in a durable political settlement and an inclusive process that can command broad legitimacy across the territories.