by Kirill Semenov
[REGNUM.RU] The events of early July 2026 in the Gaza Strip marked a significant transformation of the Palestinian system of governance in the enclave.
Hamas announced the dissolution of its de facto government, which has functioned for two decades, and the beginning of the transfer of administrative powers to the National Governance Committee for Gaza (NGGC), a technocratic cabinet formed as part of the American-led ceasefire initiative.
Taqqiya. "Give us money"
This move should be assessed through the prism of Hamas's strategy. It is a complex maneuver aimed at adapting to the ongoing Israeli military operation, despite the ceasefire, and the international diplomatic landscape.
TRANSIT MECHANICS
It should be clarified that the Committee for Oversight of Government Work is subject to dissolution – a structure that, from 2006–2007, effectively performed the functions of the executive authority in the Gaza Strip under the auspices of Hamas.
As a Palestinian source close to Hamas's leadership explained to Regnum, the committee was formed of deputy ministers and technical specialists after the Hamas government came to power to manage the daily affairs of citizens. It was designated as a committee, rather than a government, to avoid political clashes with the Palestinian National Authority. Tellingly, the government in Ramallah refused to accept the committee's documents in 2017.
Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar insisted on calling the staff deputy ministers rather than ministers, and the committee a supervisory body rather than a government, to avoid political embarrassment and ensure the continued provision of services to citizens regardless of factional squabbles.
The committee was successively led by prominent figures.
In 2021, it was headed by Issam al-Daalis, who remained in his post throughout the active phase of the war with Israel and became the most prominent civilian figure in the governance of Gaza during its most difficult period.
But on March 18, 2025, he became the target of an assassination
Then, as a Hamas spokesman recounted, Muhammad al-Farra took over as chairman of the committee in complete secrecy, without an official announcement, for fear of surveillance and assassination.
He continued to govern from behind the scenes until the acting chairman officially announced the committee's dissolution.
“This decision was not a cold political maneuver, but rather a responsible step aimed at preparing the ground for reaching agreements with the Palestinian factions and implementing the necessary measures to preserve the rights of the people and end the bloodshed.
Hamas understood that continuing to call this committee a 'government' or keeping its members on the front lines of events gave the occupation authorities a constant pretext for harassment, murder, and starvation of the besieged population," the source explained.
"Hamas readily offered unprecedented administrative concessions, allowing the technocratic committee (i.e., the NCUG – editor's note) to take over the management of civil affairs," the source added.
The decision to liquidate the committee was accompanied by the resignation of its head and the appointment of the Deputy Minister for Religious Endowments and Awqaf as temporary coordinator.
In official comments to the media, Ismail al-Sawabta, director of the government media office in Gaza, detailed the transfer of powers, emphasizing its gradual nature and the elimination of the possibility of an administrative vacuum.
Gaza's Hamas-affiliated Ministry of the Interior will continue to provide basic security functions not only until the physical arrival and operation of the technocratic committee, but also until the creation of new security forces subordinate to the Palestinian Authority, rather than to external control.
In turn, the 15 members of the previous government committee will retain control of current affairs, but will suspend political decision-making until they agree with the officials of the NKUG.
This transit structure demonstrates the desire of Palestinian institutions to maintain the continuity of the state apparatus in a context where external actors are attempting to impose alternative models of governance.
Coordination between committee leaders and local ministries—the police, the health ministry, and border crossing services—has been ongoing for several months, indicating that infrastructure preparations for the transfer of authority have been underway. Hamas has never opposed the transfer of authority to the technical administration. The main obstacle was Israel, which blocked access to Gaza for members of the NCUG.
THE 50,000 EMPLOYEE PROBLEM
The central issue of the transition period remains the status of the approximately 50,000 permanent and temporary employees of the Hamas government.
| Temporary Hamas government employees, but permanent Hamas members, surely. Terror organizations are not known for hiring temps. |
The demands of Israel and parts of the Palestinian political elite, including Fatah, call for the mass dismissal of these employees or their selective integration after a “thorough vetting” into new structures with the dismissal of the majority.
However, the layoff of tens of thousands of people in the context of a destroyed economy and the absence of a functioning private sector will lead to the impoverishment of between 250,000 and 500,000 people dependent on these salaries – family members, including children and elderly relatives.
| Bummer. War is hell — next time don’t start one. |
The movement's position is based on the understanding that mass layoffs under a blockade are tantamount to collective punishment of the population. Maintaining the skeleton of the previous government until guarantees for employees are agreed upon reflects an attempt to protect the social fabric of Gaza from further disintegration.
As the Hamas representative emphasized, the agreement on the formation of the NCUG was based on the issue of internal security personnel, that is, essentially, the armed wing of Hamas, which was seen as a fundamental basis for avoiding an administrative or security vacuum.
According to the Palestinian, the official agreements stipulated that all technical and support personnel in the health, education and municipal services sectors, as well as internal security and police forces, would continue to work as usual, as if nothing had changed.
However, their labor and financial status will be radically altered, as their affiliation will be fully transferred to the National Governance Committee for Gaza, recognizing them as civil servants and not employees of any particular faction. Their number was estimated at 45,000–48,000, all appointed after 2007.
| So we’e to just ignore the fact that they are hardcore Hamas members — a requirement to be hired, just like people had to join the Nazi party to get a job after Hitler was elected. |
"Israel's true goal is not simply a change of administrative personnel, but a demand for complete disarmament, the dismantling of military capabilities, and the subordination of any agreements in Gaza to the plans for population transfer and occupation. This rejection is clearly demonstrated by the continued ban on the new National Committee entering Gaza, demonstrating that the obstacle is not on the Palestinian side, but exclusively on the Israeli side," Hamas emphasized.
MLADENOV AND ADMISSION CONDITIONS
In parallel with the administrative reorganization, negotiations are ongoing in Cairo with the participation of Hamas, other Palestinian groups, and the Peace Council's high representative for Gaza, Bulgarian Nikolay Mladenov. The subject of discussion is the implementation of the roadmap presented by Mladenov in April 2025.
The key point of disagreement is the condition put forward by Mladenov: the entry of the technocratic committee into the Gaza Strip is made contingent on reaching an agreement on “arms limitation” and the disarmament of Hamas.
The Palestinian side qualifies the demand as violating the basic principles of international law, since it requires the disarmament of the movement's armed wing before the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian territory.
| Huh? |
| Stacking arms is part of the historic surrender process. When, and for what stupid reason, did that change? |
As a Palestinian source for Regnum noted, Mladenov's plan left Gazans suffering from hunger, siege, lack of education and housing.
"By requiring weapons collection and linking it to humanitarian aid, the plan turns aid into a weapon of collective punishment, giving Israel free rein to starve the population and hinder reconstruction efforts," he stressed.
The Israeli television channel Kan, citing an internal Hamas document, reported on the movement's decision to delay disarmament negotiations. However, analysis shows that the decision was based on an assessment of the behavior of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
According to the document, Hamas assumes that Netanyahu views any concessions on Gaza as political suicide in the context of the upcoming Knesset (parliament) elections and is deliberately delaying the implementation of the ceasefire conditions.
The Palestinian movement decided to mirror this tactic, hoping for a change in Israeli leadership after the elections.
Thus, both sides are using delaying tactics, but the motivations are different: while Hamas is expecting a change in Israeli leadership, Netanyahu is seeking to maintain the status quo of permanent conflict, blockade, and limited continuation of military operations as a political resource.
BUFFER ZONES AND EVICTIONS
At a meeting of the Israeli government, Netanyahu commented on reports of a possible change in American policy towards Gaza.
The Prime Minister tried in his own manner to refute the information that the US is demanding that Israel “continue reconstruction work even if Hamas is not disarmed,” and stated: “There will be no restoration of Gaza without disarmament and demilitarization of the Strip.”
The statement merely confirms that Israel is deliberately blocking reconstruction efforts by tying them to conditions that are impossible to fulfill under current circumstances and that Hamas initially rejected when negotiating the deal with the Americans. This position, according to human rights organizations, amounts to using the humanitarian situation as leverage against the civilian population.
Netanyahu's words attracted particular attention: "The people of Gaza must have freedom of choice: those who want to leave can do so, and those who stay must not pose a threat to us."
Given the destroyed infrastructure, the lack of basic living conditions, and the ongoing military operation, the Israeli prime minister's statements, according to international lawyers, could be qualified as a violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the forced displacement of protected persons from occupied territory.
Netanyahu also confirmed the retention of buffer zones: "There is now a new border belt around Gaza—within Gaza itself." According to satellite analysis by the B'Tselem research group, these zones encompass a significant portion of the Strip's agricultural land and coastal areas. The de facto annexation of territory limits Palestinian access to resources.
As a Hamas spokesman emphasized, this also demonstrates that the Netanyahu government has no acceptable solution other than population transfer or occupation of the remaining parts of Gaza. This explains their military expansion, which has increased their control from 50% of Gaza's territory to almost 60%.
He said the committee's dissolution was a "political earthquake" that forced a rethinking of the issue and placed it before America and Donald Trump personally, especially before his meeting with Netanyahu.
"With this move, Hamas put Israel in an awkward position, since Tel Aviv could no longer blame the Palestinians for the lack of partnership, and Washington was forced to admit that the problem had not yet been resolved and that Mladenov's plan, which it considered a ready-made deal, had collapsed in the face of the fact that Gaza needed a political solution, not related to the management of municipalities, but rather to an end to the occupation and aggression," the source noted.
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL CONTEXT
Israel's actions in Gaza, including the creation of buffer zones, blocking reconstruction and tying humanitarian aid to political conditions, have been criticized by various international institutions.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has highlighted systematic violations of international humanitarian law in its latest reports.
The technocratic transition in Gaza is taking place in a context where the international community is failing to ensure Israel complies with its obligations as an occupying power. The creation of the Peace Council and the appointment of Mladenov as the High Representative for Gaza, according to international law experts, sets a precedent for external governance of the territory without ensuring the basic rights of its population.
The dissolution of the Hamas government and the transfer of powers to a technocratic committee represent an attempt to adapt to the new political reality. However, the success of this transition depends on several factors.
First, it depends on Israel's willingness to allow entry of members of the NCUG into the Gaza Strip. Currently, such permission has not been granted, making the entire process purely declaratory.
Secondly, it requires funding to pay the salaries of 50,000 former Hamas government employees, including security forces. Without a solution to this problem, the technocratic committee will face a social upheaval.
Thirdly, it depends on the position of the Arab states, which must determine the extent of their participation in financing the reconstruction processes and guarantees for the Palestinian population.
Thus, the events of July 6–7, 2026, in Gaza reflect a complex process of institutional transformation under conditions of ongoing occupation and blockade.
The dissolution of the Hamas government is not a capitulation, as some Western media have interpreted it, but represents a pragmatic step to protect the governing institutions in changing circumstances while preserving Palestinian security structures.