Militias in Gaza that have received backing and arms from Israel have made little headway in challenging Hamas's control of the territory, according to a report published by The Times of Israel on June 21, 2026. The development underscores the limited effectiveness of Israel's strategy to cultivate local armed groups as alternatives to Hamas governance, while raising questions about the humanitarian and political consequences of arming non-state actors in a densely populated civilian area.
The Strategy and Its Limits
Israel's support for Gaza-based militias represents an attempt to weaken Hamas from within by empowering rival factions. However, despite receiving Israeli arms and backing, these groups have failed to make significant territorial or political gains against Hamas, which has governed Gaza since 2007. The militias' inability to challenge Hamas effectively leaves the fundamental power structure in Gaza unchanged, while the introduction of additional armed groups into an already volatile environment raises concerns about civilian safety and the potential for intra-Palestinian violence.
The strategy also reflects the absence of a viable political framework for Gaza's future. Without a credible alternative to Hamas governance—whether through renewed Palestinian Authority control, international administration, or a negotiated settlement—military approaches alone have proven insufficient to alter the territory's political landscape.
Humanitarian Implications
The arming of local militias in Gaza, a territory of approximately two million people living under blockade, carries significant risks for civilian populations already enduring severe humanitarian conditions. The proliferation of armed groups and weapons in densely populated areas increases the likelihood of armed clashes that could further endanger civilians who have limited means of escape or protection. Gaza's residents have experienced repeated cycles of conflict, displacement, and destruction, and the introduction of additional armed actors threatens to compound these hardships.
The failure of these militias to achieve their stated objectives also means that the underlying conditions driving instability in Gaza—including the blockade, unemployment, restrictions on movement, and the collapse of basic services—remain unaddressed. Military strategies that do not include parallel diplomatic, economic, and humanitarian initiatives have historically failed to produce sustainable security or stability for either Israelis or Palestinians.
Questions of Accountability
The Israeli government's decision to arm non-state actors in Gaza also raises questions about accountability and adherence to international humanitarian law. When state actors provide weapons to militias operating in civilian areas, they bear responsibility for how those weapons are used and for any violations of the laws of war that may result. The international community has consistently emphasized that all parties to the conflict must distinguish between combatants and civilians and take precautions to minimize harm to non-combatants.
Furthermore, the strategy risks entrenching fragmentation within Palestinian society at a time when political unity and legitimate governance are essential prerequisites for any negotiated resolution to the conflict. Efforts to weaken Hamas through military means, without offering Palestinians a credible political alternative or pathway to self-determination, may ultimately perpetuate the cycle of violence rather than break it.
Why This Matters:
The failure of Israeli-backed militias to challenge Hamas reveals the limitations of military approaches to Gaza that are not accompanied by serious political and diplomatic initiatives. For Gaza's two million residents, the proliferation of armed groups threatens to worsen an already dire humanitarian situation without addressing the root causes of instability: the blockade, the absence of political rights, and the collapse of the peace process. For Israelis, the strategy's ineffectiveness means continued security threats without progress toward a sustainable resolution. The international community's long-standing position—that Gaza's future must be resolved through negotiations leading to Palestinian statehood alongside Israel—remains the only framework with broad legitimacy, yet it grows more distant as military strategies dominate policy. The human cost of this stalemate continues to mount on both sides.