This Saturday, residents of Deir al-Balah in Gaza are preparing to participate in their first local elections in over two decades. While seemingly a step towards self-governance, experts express deep concern that the timing could inadvertently strengthen Hamas’s grip on power, particularly as the group resists demands for disarmament.
The decision to hold elections under the current volatile circumstances echoes past missteps. Previous attempts to foster democracy, like the 2006 elections, unexpectedly propelled Hamas to victory, ultimately leading to internal conflict and a prolonged standoff. The situation in Gaza remains precarious, making a fair and unbiased electoral process exceptionally challenging.
A significant obstacle is the blurred line between civilian life and militant affiliation. Reports continue to surface identifying journalists and ordinary citizens posthumously as members of terrorist organizations, highlighting the difficulty in distinguishing legitimate political actors from those involved in armed conflict.
Four parties are vying for leadership in Deir al-Balah, with candidates ostensibly required to acknowledge the Palestine Liberation Organization and its past agreements, including recognition of Israel and a two-state solution. However, anxieties are mounting over the potential success of “Deir al-Balah Unites Us,” a party widely suspected of having close ties to Hamas, with candidates publicly appearing alongside Hamas officials.
Critics argue that proceeding with the elections is profoundly irresponsible. Gazans currently face severe repercussions – arrest, imprisonment, torture, and even death – for expressing dissent or criticizing Hamas online. These elections risk disrupting carefully planned transition efforts focused on Hamas’s disarmament and relinquishment of control.
The demand for Hamas to disarm remains a central component of previous ceasefire negotiations, including those brokered under the Trump administration. Yet, evidence suggests Hamas has actually consolidated its control in recent months, continuing to levy taxes, establish educational institutions, and deploy a visible police presence throughout the territory.
Hamas is unlikely to willingly surrender its weapons, and any offer to do so is viewed with skepticism. The group may attempt to selectively disarm, relinquishing heavier weaponry while retaining a substantial arsenal of automatic firearms, a tactic designed to maintain its military capabilities.
Recent reports indicate a partial disarmament offer from Hamas, proposing to hand over weapons from its police force and security institutions. However, officials have remained evasive when questioned about the fate of weapons held by its military wing, raising doubts about the sincerity and scope of the offer.
Experts dismiss the notion that Hamas operates distinct political and military wings. This separation, often presented to the West, is considered a deliberate fiction intended to facilitate political engagement or justify holding elections. The reality is a seamless integration of power and control within the organization.
Weakening Iran, Hamas’s primary benefactor, could significantly diminish the group’s influence. A decisive defeat for Iran would deliver a devastating psychological blow to Hamas, undermining its morale and operational capacity.
With Israel currently controlling a majority of the Gaza Strip, the gradual erosion of Hamas’s authority is a possibility. However, achieving lasting success requires sustained patience, as adversaries operate on a different timeline, hoping to outlast international resolve.
The question of whether a partial disarmament would satisfy previous ceasefire agreements remains unanswered. The Trump administration has not publicly addressed this issue, leaving the future of the peace process uncertain and the potential for renewed conflict looming large.
