Introduction

 

In a surprising and controversial development, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently acknowledged that Israel has provided support—including weapons—to select armed groups within Gaza. These groups, which some call “local militias” and others term “criminal gangs,” are reportedly being empowered to challenge Hamas’s authority in specific parts of the region. While the policy is being defended by Israeli leadership as a strategic necessity, critics warn of dangerous long-term implications for regional security and humanitarian stability.

 

This blog explores the reasoning, risks, and reactions surrounding this clandestine policy, which is rapidly becoming one of the most contentious aspects of the ongoing Israel–Hamas conflict.

 

Background: Why Is Israel Doing This?

 

For over two decades, Hamas has held de facto power in Gaza. After the October 2023 conflict reignited large-scale fighting, Israeli forces launched a prolonged military campaign aimed at dismantling Hamas's military and political networks. However, as operations stretched on and casualties rose, Israeli leadership sought alternative strategies.

 

One such strategy now in the spotlight involves empowering anti-Hamas groups operating in the shadows of Gaza’s fractured society. According to Israeli officials, the logic is simple: weaken Hamas from within while reducing direct Israeli military engagement in densely populated urban areas.

 

Prime Minister Netanyahu, in a rare public confirmation, described these groups as "local clans opposed to Hamas rule." By supporting them, he said, Israel aims to "prevent unnecessary Israeli troop casualties and create internal pressure against Hamas."

 

Who Are These Groups?

 

The groups receiving Israeli support are loosely organized factions, often rooted in powerful families or tribes in southern Gaza. One of the most prominent is allegedly led by a man named Yasser Abu Shabab, a former prisoner known for his influence in Rafah.

 

While the Israeli government refers to them as “clan-based anti-Hamas actors,” critics argue these are essentially militias or gangs—some with prior involvement in smuggling, extortion, and black-market operations. These factions are not necessarily ideologically aligned with Israel or any democratic values. Rather, they are united by their rivalry with Hamas and a desire for power in a post-Hamas Gaza.

 

Weapons, Warlords, and Aid Corridors

 

Reports from aid workers and international observers suggest that these groups are increasingly involved in managing aid convoys and local security in areas vacated by Hamas forces. However, their growing influence has raised concerns about looting and violence.

 

Some groups have been accused of diverting humanitarian supplies, intimidating civilians, and imposing control over areas with little oversight. Human rights organizations warn that by replacing one armed authority with another—without accountability—Israel may be creating new warlords, not peacekeepers.

 

Strategic Benefits for Israel

 

Israeli military planners reportedly see three key advantages to this policy:

 

Reducing Direct Combat – By enabling local actors to take on Hamas fighters, Israel avoids risking its own soldiers in street-to-street warfare.

 

Fomenting Internal Strife – The appearance of local uprisings against Hamas undermines the group’s image of control and authority within Gaza.

 

Testing Post-Hamas Governance – Some in Israel view this as a trial run for local governance in a post-Hamas scenario, especially in southern Gaza.

 

However, none of these benefits are guaranteed, and all come with considerable risk.

 

Global Response: Divided Opinions

 

United States:

 

While the U.S. continues to support Israel's right to self-defense, Washington has urged restraint and emphasized the importance of respecting international humanitarian law. The Biden administration has so far refrained from publicly endorsing or condemning the militia strategy.

 

European Union:

 

EU officials have expressed concern about the legality and potential blowback of arming non-state actors. Brussels has called for transparent, internationally coordinated humanitarian operations in Gaza and has warned against “empowering unaccountable forces.”

 

India:

 

India, which maintains diplomatic ties with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, has taken a more cautious approach. While it acknowledges the need to counter terrorism, New Delhi emphasizes the importance of long-term stability and rebuilding efforts in Gaza post-conflict.

 

Risks and Ethical Concerns

 

Experts warn that empowering loosely organized and often criminally linked groups can lead to unintended consequences. These include:

 

Escalation of Intra-Gaza Violence: Rival factions may clash for control, leading to further chaos.

 

Lack of Oversight: Without legal frameworks or rules of engagement, civilian abuse and looting may increase.

 

Empowerment of Future Threats: Some groups receiving arms today may become hostile to Israel—or others—tomorrow.

 

What’s Next?

 

It remains unclear whether this policy is a temporary tactic or part of a broader long-term plan. For now, the move is increasing friction not just in Gaza but also within Israel’s political establishment, with some former officials accusing the government of bypassing standard defense protocols.

 

On the ground, civilians remain caught between militant rule, foreign military occupation, and newly armed militias whose true loyalties are uncertain.

 

Conclusion

 

Israel’s decision to arm non-state actors in Gaza may offer short-term tactical benefits in its fight against Hamas, but it comes with serious long-term risks. For the international community—especially stakeholders like the U.S., EU, and India—the key concern is not just who holds the weapons, but who will be accountable for what follows.