Armed militia groups backed by Israel are rapidly gaining influence inside Gaza, creating a new layer of instability that could derail US President Donald Trump’s proposed peace plan for the territory.
According to multiple accounts, Israeli military and security agencies have for several months been providing weapons, training, and operational support to newly emerging factions positioned as local alternatives to Hamas.
The strategy, initially limited to small auxiliary forces, has accelerated in recent weeks, resulting in the rise of several militias collectively referred to as Popular Forces.
These groups, spearheaded by a commander known as Yasser Abu Shabab, have been operating across southern Gaza and coordinating directly with Israeli forces at aid distribution sites managed by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an organization funded with both US and Israeli backing.
While Israel has long sought to weaken Hamas, this approach represents a new phase in its strategy by nurturing rival factions within Gaza itself.
Abu Shabab’s Popular Forces have reportedly entrenched themselves in several areas, while nearly a dozen new militias have surfaced across Khan Younis, Gaza City, and other strategic zones.
Leaders of these groups claim they are prepared to replace Hamas as the dominant authority in Gaza, with some openly declaring their willingness to align with Israel if it helps them secure local control.
Hossam al-Astal, commander of one of the newly formed factions in Khan Younis, was quoted saying that Hamas has always believed no rival could emerge in Gaza, but now multiple forces stand ready to challenge that dominance.
His rhetoric underscores a profound shift in local dynamics. “I’m sorry, I will work with the devil himself if it helps me to protect my city. Hamas must leave Gaza,” al-Astal said in remarks that reflect both desperation and defiance.
By presenting themselves as guardians of their communities, militia leaders are seeking to build legitimacy, even as critics warn their rise could splinter Gaza into chaotic zones of competing authority.
The timing of these developments could not be more sensitive. Trump’s Gaza peace plan, announced with much fanfare and supported by both Israel and Arab leaders, places heavy emphasis on dismantling Hamas’s control and introducing new governance structures that would enable reconstruction, aid delivery, and long-term stability.
However, the proliferation of armed militias complicates that vision, potentially creating a vacuum filled not by orderly administration but by rival warlords with competing allegiances.
If Hamas loses control under military and diplomatic pressure while new militias rise without a unifying framework, Gaza risks descending into factional conflict that would make governance nearly impossible.
Humanitarian organizations working in the territory are already warning of worsening conditions. Distribution of aid remains one of the most contentious issues, with Israeli authorities tightly regulating what enters Gaza while aid groups struggle to deliver supplies to desperate families.
The involvement of militias in controlling aid distribution further exacerbates these challenges. With armed groups now present at critical distribution points, reports suggest they are using access to food and medicine as a means of consolidating influence. Such practices could deepen resentment among civilians and undermine any legitimacy these groups attempt to claim.
Observers note that Israel’s support for alternative factions carries serious risks. While the strategy may weaken Hamas in the short term, it also risks creating a patchwork of armed actors beyond Israel’s control.
History has shown that once militias establish themselves with weapons and local networks, they can be extremely difficult to dismantle. Some analysts argue that Israel could inadvertently be sowing the seeds of future instability by empowering groups whose long-term agendas may diverge from its own.
The rise of Abu Shabab’s Popular Forces and others like them may ultimately shift the balance of power in unpredictable ways, creating both security dilemmas and humanitarian emergencies.
The broader geopolitical implications are significant. Trump’s peace plan relies on presenting Hamas with a narrow choice: accept the proposed framework or face further isolation and potential military consequences.
The presence of alternative forces, however, could embolden Trump and his allies to argue that Hamas is replaceable, thereby strengthening their ultimatum.
Yet at the same time, the chaotic emergence of multiple militias undermines the central premise of the plan, which requires stable administration for aid delivery, reconstruction, and governance. If the territory fragments under the control of competing armed factions, any peace plan risks collapsing before it even begins.
Within Gaza, residents are caught between Hamas’s dominance and the rising power of militias. Many civilians view both sides with suspicion, fearing that neither will prioritize their wellbeing.
Humanitarian experts warn that ordinary people are once again the biggest losers in this struggle, facing shortages of electricity, clean water, medical supplies, and secure shelter. For families already exhausted by years of siege and war, the emergence of militias only heightens uncertainty about the future.
Internationally, reactions remain cautious. Israel has not publicly acknowledged the extent of its involvement in arming local groups, but statements from militia leaders leave little doubt that cooperation exists.
For Washington, the development complicates Trump’s narrative of a clear and enforceable peace solution. Allies in the Arab world, while supportive of any effort to weaken Hamas, also worry that uncontrolled militia activity could destabilize the region further and undermine their own commitments to the plan.
The next stage of events in Gaza will hinge on whether Hamas concedes to Trump’s ultimatum and whether the militias remain aligned with Israel or begin pursuing independent agendas.
If Hamas rejects the plan, Israel and its allies may push militias to fill the vacuum, but that path risks unleashing unpredictable conflict. If Hamas accepts under pressure, it will face the challenge of coexisting with armed groups backed by its sworn enemy, a scenario fraught with volatility.
What remains clear is that the Gaza crisis has entered an even more complex phase. The introduction of Israeli-backed militias adds a dangerous new variable to a conflict already defined by layers of political, religious, and social fractures.
For Trump’s peace plan to succeed, it will have to contend not only with Hamas but also with the shifting realities on the ground where new actors, fueled by weapons and ambition, are vying for control. For civilians, this means that instead of relief and stability, the days ahead may bring more uncertainty and struggle.
About The Author
