Hamas and the Gaza Strip

How should Israel implement the necessary effort to disarm Hamas?

As the campaign against Iran winds down, attention is expected to return to the Gaza Strip. In the meantime, Hamas is exploiting the strategic vacuum to rehabilitate its governance and military capabilities. Simultaneously, the Trump framework remains stalled, and the “Board of Peace” faces professional, operational, and budgetary difficulties in advancing its declared objectives. The issue of demilitarization remains trapped between Israel's demand for the complete and immediate disarmament of Hamas and the organization's stalling tactics. Israel faces three main alternatives: (1) Renewal of efforts to fully implement the Trump framework across the Strip, a course that carries the risk of “mock demilitarization” and depends on Hamas’s consent; (2) Gradual stabilization and reconstruction of areas cleared of Hamas while continuing to erode its control in areas still under its rule. This option is vulnerable to violent disruption and could entrench the Strip’s division; (3) A return to war and the reoccupation of the Gaza Strip, which would entail extremely heavy military, economic, and diplomatic costs for Israel. The key recommendation is to avoid perpetuating the status quo, which establishes Hamas's rule, and instead adopt a proactive approach. Israel should allow the implementation of the Mladenov framework for gradual demilitarization, beginning with heavy weapons, while coordinating with the Trump administration regarding scenarios that would justify use of force. If Hamas obstructs the process, Israel should implement a differential alternative: the entry of a civilian committee and Palestinian police into "green zones" cleared of Hamas (alongside increasing Israeli security responsibility modeled on Judea and Samaria). Simultaneously, Hamas’s capabilities and governance in the “red zone” should be systematically degraded, including the gradual erosion of its territorial control. The alternative of returning to war and military occupation should remain a last-resort alternative, contingent on the formulation of an exit strategy and a designated body to assume civilian responsibility.

The radicalization of Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip is not a new phenomenon, but the process has accelerated and deepened dramatically since Hamas’ takeover of the territory in 2007. Under its rule, an extremist religious-nationalist ideology has been systematically embedded across all spheres of Gaza life—from education and religious institutions to welfare and the media—producing a profound “Hamasification” of public consciousness. The war that erupted on October 7 brought unprecedented ruin to the Gaza Strip, both physically and institutionally, posing a monumental reconstruction challenge, but also a rare historic opportunity. This memorandum argues that military disarmament and physical rehabilitation alone will not ensure long-term security and stability, and that a far deeper process of “de-Hamasifcation” is required: dismantling Hamas’ ideological and institutional hegemony and replacing it with a more moderate civic and normative infrastructure. The study presents a comparative analysis of Western and Arab deradicalization models and finds that Western approaches—such as those implemented in Germany and Japan—struggle to provide an adequate response to Gaza’s cultural and political context. Instead, we propose adopting operational principles drawn from contemporary Arab models, particularly the “civic-transformative” model applied in the Gulf states, which combines a firm crackdown on extremist actors with re-education toward religious tolerance and broad-based economic rehabilitation. The paper outlines an integrative strategy encompassing sustained security demilitarization, the mobilization of an Arab coalition to provide religious and political legitimacy, and the establishment of a credible political horizon as a counterweight to the ethos of “resistance.” Only the combination of these elements can generate a viable governing and ideological alternative to Hamas and lead to a more stable long-term security environment for the State of Israel.

What is the mission of the international board established by the US president as part of his plan to end the war in the Gaza Strip—and what are the implications of Trump’s move?

After each round of violent clashes between Israel and Hamas, the issue of rehabilitating the Gaza Strip and improving its economic situation is raised once again. The accepted working assumption is that given suitable political conditions, and in the framework of a political process based on an attempt to promote the realization of the two-state paradigm, in which the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are considered one political and territorial unit under the control of the Palestinian Authority, it will be possible to rehabilitate the Strip. But it appears that nobody has ever asked if the Gaza Strip can indeed be rehabilitated. In this paper I will try to clarify the meaning of “rehabilitation” in the context of the Gaza Strip, and with the aid of a matrix of variables, those that facilitate rehabilitation and those that disrupt it, examine a number of basic questions dealing with the actual feasibility of rehabilitating the Gaza Strip under existing conditions. Following that, with reference to my conclusion regarding the absence of sufficient conditions for a successful rehabilitation process, I will describe the characteristics of this state of affairs and its ramifications, and propose a number of possible options for dealing with the emerging situation in the absence of rehabilitation, with an emphasis on the importance of adopting logical guidelines which do not currently exist but which are here deemed to be essential for the success of such a process. The conclusion of this paper is that leaving Hamas in the Gaza Strip as a ruling entity and with their commitment to the preservation of the idea of armed resistance, are both strongly disruptive variables, and both are endogenous to the Palestinian system. Therefore, without neutralizing these two variables, or at least weakening them very considerably, it is hard to imagine that the rehabilitation process will succeed.