How the Militant Group Secretly Seizes Control of Gaza’s “Independent” Government
In a dramatic revelation that threatens to undermine international efforts to exclude Hamas from Gaza’s postwar governance, Channel Kan 11 correspondent and analyst Elior Levy has uncovered a clandestine power-sharing arrangement that grants the designated terrorist organization significant control over the composition of the technocratic government intended to manage the Gaza Strip. According to Levy’s investigative report, Hamas has been secretly participating in the formation of the technocrat government with the full knowledge of Arab mediators, particularly Egypt. The arrangement reveals a complex behind-the-scenes negotiation that directly contradicts public statements by international actors regarding Hamas’s exclusion from Gaza’s future governance.
The investigation exposes a carefully calibrated division of power in which Hamas has appointed approximately half of the technocrat government’s composition. These individuals, while not openly affiliated with Hamas, are described as supporters of the organization and its principles—creating a façade of political neutrality while ensuring ideological alignment with the militant group’s objectives. The other half of the technocratic committee was selected by the Palestinian Authority, which knowingly and tacitly agreed to Hamas’s participation in appointing half the composition. This arrangement represents a significant concession by the PA, which has been locked in a bitter power struggle with Hamas since the latter’s violent takeover of Gaza in 2007.
Perhaps most significantly, Egyptian mediators presented Hamas with the complete list of proposed candidates to secure the group’s approval. This vetting process effectively grants Hamas veto power over the technocratic government’s composition, ensuring that no candidates objectionable to the militant organization assume positions of authority. Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty announced on October 13, 2025, that 15 Palestinian technocrats have been approved to manage postwar Gaza, stating that these individuals had been vetted in conjunction with Israel. However, Levy’s reporting suggests that Hamas approval was also a prerequisite for final selection—a detail conspicuously absent from public announcements. Egypt’s role as mediator has been critical throughout ceasefire negotiations, with Cairo hosting repeated rounds of talks between Hamas and Fatah representatives aimed at establishing postwar governance structures. The Egyptian government has sought to balance multiple competing interests: preventing Palestinian displacement into Sinai, maintaining strategic relations with both Israel and the United States, and ensuring regional stability.
This arrangement will effectively leave Hamas with some degree of control over the Gaza Strip in the postwar period—albeit through the back door rather than direct governance. The structure allows Hamas to maintain influence while technically complying with international demands that it not participate directly in Gaza’s administration. US President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan explicitly calls for Gaza to become a “deradicalized terror-free zone” with Hamas having no role in future governance. The plan envisions a “temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee” overseen by an international “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump and including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. However, the clandestine power-sharing arrangement revealed by Levy suggests that implementation of these provisions may be significantly compromised from the outset. By appointing ideologically sympathetic technocrats, Hamas can exert indirect influence over governance decisions, resource allocation, and security arrangements without formally violating the terms of the peace agreement.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that Israel would not accept Hamas remaining in Gaza or allow the Palestinian Authority as currently constituted to govern the territory. Netanyahu’s government has insisted that any postwar arrangement must include the complete dismantling of Hamas’s military capabilities, its disarmament, and the establishment of an alternative civilian government that “does not educate for terrorism”. The revelation that Hamas has been granted substantial influence over the technocrat government’s composition is likely to provoke strong Israeli opposition and could potentially derail the fragile peace process. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has already communicated stern warnings that Hamas fighters must vacate Israeli-controlled areas immediately, with leaders held accountable for violations.
The arrangement reflects Hamas’s strategic adaptation to its significantly weakened military and political position following nearly two years of devastating conflict. While publicly claiming it will not participate in postwar governance, Hamas has quietly negotiated mechanisms to preserve influence through proxy appointments and veto power over candidates. Hamas sources have told international media that “the governance of the Gaza Strip is a closed issue” and that the group “will not participate at all in the transitional phase”. However, these public statements appear designed to satisfy international demands while obscuring the backdoor control mechanisms revealed by Levy’s investigation. The clandestine nature of the power-sharing arrangement raises fundamental questions about the legitimacy and sustainability of the proposed technocratic government. Palestinian analysts have warned that governance structures divorced from internal political legitimacy risk repeating past failures. Without genuine Palestinian political unity and transparent processes, any imposed technocratic solution may lack the credibility needed to govern effectively. Furthermore, the arrangement exposes the deep fractures in Palestinian political life at a moment when international sympathy for Palestinian statehood has reached unprecedented levels. The inability to forge genuine internal unity—demonstrated by the secretive nature of the Hamas-PA power-sharing deal—may squander a pivotal opportunity for Palestinian self-determination.
The Egyptian-brokered arrangement reflects the complex regional dynamics surrounding Gaza’s reconstruction and future governance. Multiple stakeholders—including Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—each seek to advance different agendas in postwar Gaza. Egypt’s particular concern about preventing mass Palestinian displacement into Sinai has made it especially willing to accommodate Hamas in governance discussions to ensure stability. The revelation also highlights the challenges facing Trump’s peace plan, which requires acceptance and implementation by parties with fundamentally incompatible objectives. While Israel demands Hamas’s complete exclusion and disarmament, and the United States insists on a “terror-free” governance structure, the practical reality revealed by Levy suggests that mediators have prioritized achieving an agreement over ensuring its substantive terms are honored.
This dramatic development leaves the future of Gaza’s governance in profound uncertainty. The technocrat government, supposedly designed to provide neutral, apolitical administration while the Palestinian Authority undergoes reforms, has been compromised before it even begins operations. Hamas’s backdoor influence threatens to perpetuate the very dynamics the international community sought to eliminate—ensuring that the militant organization retains leverage over Gaza’s political trajectory, resource allocation, and security environment. Whether this arrangement can survive Israeli scrutiny, international oversight, and the implementation demands of Trump’s peace plan remains highly doubtful. The revelation by Elior Levy exposes the gap between public diplomacy and private negotiations—a gap that may ultimately prove unbridgeable as the ceasefire’s second phase approaches and questions of permanent governance arrangements become unavoidable.
See @eliorlevy report on X.
