Post-war Gaza: Between the wounds of genocide and the possibilities for political transformation

The most dangerous legacy left by wars is not just the physical destruction or the number of victims; the real danger is their power to erase established values and reshape entire systems of concepts and behaviors. Changes that would normally take generations can occur in just a few months of war. While this is true even for ordinary wars, in the genocidal war waged against the Palestinian people in Gaza, the occupation’s goal was not merely to destroy buildings, but to reconstruct the Palestinian individual: their values, their relationships, and their very understanding of survival.

So-called “humanitarian aid” policies became the most striking example of this strategy. It became a tool that combined aid with humiliation, appearing humanitarian on the surface but in reality based on social engineering. By forcing Palestinians into an equation of survival at each other’s expense, it aimed to unravel society from within and shift the focus of the struggle from resistance against the occupation to internal competition. However, these attempts repeatedly hit a wall against the resilience and deep collective consciousness of Palestinian society. Despite the catastrophe, Palestinian society preserved its values. No matter how brutal Israel’s violence was, it failed to destroy the Palestinian family—the core of social solidarity; it could not uproot the deep-seated belief in the justness of the Palestinian cause and the right to freedom and self-determination.

Thus, the conflict transformed into an unsolvable equation: absolute material superiority versus absolute moral superiority based on justice, dignity, and the will to resist. Today, in the aftermath of this unprecedented genocide, the occupier is once again trying to prevent Palestinians from getting back on their feet. It is doing this by fueling internal divisions and laying socio-political landmines. Meanwhile, Washington has offered the war criminal Netanyahu a temporary way out with Trump’s ceasefire plan. This plan appears to be an attempt to manage the crisis rather than solve the problem; it ends the war but ignores the core of the conflict and lacks a realistic approach to a solution based on international law.

In this context, serious questions arise about the capacity of Palestinian actors, led by Hamas, to adapt to the new era. The movement, having paid a heavy humanitarian and political price after a devastating war, must now transition from a logic of “existential resistance” to a more flexible and pragmatic political approach.

This adaptive capacity will depend on three key factors:

Redefining its national role: Transitioning from an armed resistance movement to an effective political component of a unified national system.

Building constructive relations with the Arab and Islamic world: Hamas’s acceptance of the ceasefire plan was positively received in Arab and Islamic circles. This has paved the way for the movement’s gradual integration into a regional approach.

Separating organizational power from societal interests: Prioritizing reconstruction and normal life above partisan or factional interests.

If Hamas can redefine its role within the framework of an inclusive national project based on partnership and complementarity; if it can move away from its de facto ruling position and become a partner in rebuilding the Palestinian political system, then it can seize the opportunity to restore balance on the national stage and shape a new era in Palestinian politics.

However, the movement’s rhetoric of reconciliation and partnership will remain symbolic unless translated into concrete steps. If this transformation does not occur, the regional and international arrangements that will soon take shape will either exclude Hamas entirely or, at the very least, disregard it. The price for this will be the future of Gaza and the Palestinian cause. The international momentum and regional cooperation—the only cards in the Palestinians’ hands—will be lost, paving the way for Israel to complete its war objectives.

These objectives could take the form of restarting the genocide or forcibly displacing Palestinians through other means—such as fueling internal conflicts. In this way, Israel will evade responsibility for its crimes, while some countries could become partners in displacement plans without legal liability. Another stated objective, “de-radicalization,” actually means the erasure of national identity. In any case, Gaza will remain under Israeli security and military control—regardless of any claims to the contrary.

Therefore, the first post-war national task is to heal Gaza’s deep wounds with wisdom and responsibility and to strengthen immunity against social division and moral-political deviations. This is only possible through an inclusive national project that places social security and the integrity of the national fabric at the foundation of development. Any struggle for rights loses its meaning if it comes at the cost of the society’s disintegration.

In light of Trump’s so-called peace plan and the new political dynamics created by the war, four main paths emerge for the future of Gaza and the Palestinian cause:

The Administrative and Political Path: A transitional period where Gaza is temporarily administered by a Palestinian committee with Arab and international support. This process will remain fragile without genuine national unity.

The National Palestinian Path: Rebuilding political legitimacy and unifying institutions; restoring the credibility of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as an inclusive representative framework, and creating a new national charter that paves the way for general elections.

The Arab and Regional Path: Leveraging the Arab-Islamic consensus forged by the war to create a regional protective shield that provides sustainable political and economic support for Gaza. However, caution is needed against attempts to weaken this consensus or draw it into regional rivalries.

The International and Legal Path: Utilizing the pro-Palestinian shift in global public opinion to reinvigorate the process of recognizing the State of Palestine and to press for a solution based on the unity of land, people, and representation.

Today, Gaza stands at a crossroads: It will either become a zone of covert international trusteeship, managed by external actors under the pretext of “reconstruction,” or it will become a platform for building a new national legitimacy based on the principles of unity, citizenship, and participation. In either case, the future of Gaza will depend on the capacity of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, in particular, to overcome the logic of division and to redefine the relationship between resistance and politics, arms and the state, and authority and society.

The Palestinian cause, despite all attempts at erasure, has lost neither its moral essence nor its historical legitimacy. What has happened in Gaza is not the end of the Palestinian existence; it is a new test of this people’s ability to transform pain into consciousness and tragedy into rebirth. The occupation may possess the tools of death, but the Palestinians—as they have proven time and again—still possess the will and the power to rebuild life.

Therefore, the coming period must be dedicated to redefining the Palestinian national project: not as a reaction to aggression, but as a foundational vision for building an independent Palestinian state based on justice, unity, and human dignity.