Gaza Herald _A growing debate has emerged within Israel over the future of armed groups operating in the Gaza Strip with Israeli backing, as questions mount regarding the effectiveness and long-term consequences of a project that was initially promoted as a potential alternative to Hamas.
According to a report published by the Israeli news outlet Zman Yisrael and written by journalist Nurit Yohanan, the initiative has delivered limited results on the ground despite extensive support from Israeli authorities. The report highlights increasing concerns among Israeli analysts and security experts about the political and security implications of empowering local armed factions inside Gaza.
Military and Intelligence Support
The report states that Israel has provided various forms of assistance to several armed groups operating in Gaza, including weapons, intelligence information, logistical support, and medical treatment for wounded members transferred to hospitals inside Israel.
One of these groups, which refers to itself as the “People’s Army,” recently released video footage showing the use of drones, suggesting that some factions have acquired more sophisticated military capabilities than previously known.
The development has fueled concerns among Israeli observers who fear that the weapons and technology supplied to these groups could eventually create new security challenges.
Questions Surround the Project’s Goals
Despite more than a year having passed since Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly acknowledged supporting armed groups inside Gaza, the project’s ultimate objectives remain unclear.
The report cites Israeli researcher Michael Milshtein, head of the Palestinian Studies Forum at Tel Aviv University’s Moshe Dayan Center, who described Gaza as becoming “the capital of Israeli illusions.” He argued that the militia project represents another example of policies that have failed to produce meaningful results despite significant investment and expectations.
Milshtein suggested that Israeli policymakers continue searching for alternatives capable of challenging Hamas’s influence but have yet to identify a viable option capable of changing realities on the ground.
Limited Influence Compared to Hamas
According to the report, the armed groups collectively number only a few hundred fighters, while Hamas continues to maintain influence across most populated areas of the Gaza Strip.
Their activities remain concentrated in limited geographic zones and include occasional clashes with Hamas as well as efforts to build local support through the distribution of food aid and humanitarian assistance.
However, observers quoted in the report noted that these initiatives have failed to significantly alter the political landscape or weaken Hamas’s broader presence among Gaza’s population.
Lack of Public Legitimacy
One of the central criticisms highlighted in the report concerns the apparent lack of public acceptance enjoyed by the militias.
Israeli analysts acknowledged that both Hamas and Fatah, despite their political differences, largely reject the existence of these groups and view them as entities closely associated with Israeli interests.
The report also references comments by Hossam Al-Astal, a militia leader operating south of Khan Younis, who claimed that Gaza residents are exhausted by war and simply want stability and normal life. Yet testimonies collected by the publication suggested widespread hostility toward the armed groups among many residents.
Analysts argue that the absence of popular legitimacy represents a fundamental obstacle to the project’s success, as no political or security structure can endure without meaningful support from the local population.
Concerns Over Future Security Risks
Israeli security experts have also warned that the strategy could eventually backfire.
Milshtein cautioned that weapons, drones, and military equipment provided to the groups could one day be redirected against Israel itself, either through defections, internal conflicts, or the transfer of weapons to rival organizations.
He pointed to previous experiences across the region where support for local armed factions produced unintended consequences and created new security threats for their original sponsors.
These warnings have become increasingly prominent as Israeli officials evaluate the long-term sustainability of the policy.
Controversial Leadership Figures
The report further noted that many individuals chosen to lead these groups lacked traditional influence within Palestinian society.
Among them was Yasser Abu Shabab, who headed one of the largest factions before his death in 2025 and had previously faced allegations related to smuggling and criminal activities.
According to Milshtein, Israel’s decision to rely on controversial figures in hopes of creating a political alternative to Hamas was problematic from the outset.
Other figures associated with the project have similarly struggled to gain credibility or establish significant grassroots support among Palestinians.
Palestinian Analysis: A Failed Strategy
Commenting on the report, Palestinian security affairs analyst Rami Abu Zubaida argued that the militia initiative was part of a broader Israeli effort to promote what he described as a “local alternative” to Hamas.
He said Israeli planners believed that weakening Hamas militarily would not be sufficient without simultaneously creating a new political and security structure managed by local actors aligned with Israeli interests.
According to Abu Zubaida, the fact that Israeli media outlets are now openly describing the project as a failure reflects the growing gap between Israel’s objectives and realities on the ground.
He emphasized that the militias have failed to secure public legitimacy, territorial influence, or political credibility, all of which are essential components for any sustainable governing alternative.
Growing Doubts About the Future
The report concludes that the Israeli-backed militia project has so far failed to achieve its stated objective of creating a local force capable of challenging Hamas or establishing a new political reality inside Gaza.
As criticism grows within Israeli security and political circles, questions are increasingly being raised about whether the initiative can survive in its current form or whether it will ultimately join a list of unsuccessful attempts to reshape Gaza’s political landscape through externally supported local actors.
For many analysts, the project now appears less like a viable alternative and more like a costly experiment whose limitations have become increasingly difficult to ignore.
