Israel’s risky bet on Gaza militias raises strategic questions

[MIDDLE EAST] Israel’s decision to quietly back a Palestinian militia in Gaza signals more than just a tactical adjustment—it’s a revealing departure from conventional statecraft. By funneling support to a faction led by the polarizing Yasser Abu Shabab, Israeli leadership is exposing the strategic void at the heart of its post-Hamas vision. With the conflict grinding on and no viable governing alternative in place, the state appears to be hedging its bets on fragmented actors and improvised arrangements. It’s a high-stakes move, born less of strategy than of necessity.

Key Takeaways

• Israel confirmed cooperation with anti-Hamas clans in Gaza, with officials acknowledging weapons were sent to a militia led by Yasser Abu Shabab in Rafah.
• Prime Minister Netanyahu defended the move, framing it as a life-saving strategy guided by security officials.
• Abu Shabab denied receiving Israeli arms, calling the claims defamatory and insisting his group arose organically to counter local looting and injustice.
• Critics in Israel’s opposition warned of blowback, with former officials saying the lack of oversight could see the weapons turned on Israeli forces.
• Hamas has previously cracked down on Abu Shabab’s group, which gained notoriety for allegedly stealing UN aid during the conflict.
  
  Comparative Insight
  
  Israel is not the first state to experiment with “arming the enemy of my enemy” in an unstable territory.The US once armed rebel factions in Syria, hoping to straddle the fight against both ISIS and the Assad regime. The results? A patchwork of unintended outcomes, including weapons falling into extremist hands. Russia followed a parallel playbook in Ukraine, backing breakaway militias to unsettle Kyiv—only to find itself entangled in the volatility of ungovernable proxies.
  
  Gaza presents a starker dilemma. There’s no credible governing apparatus waiting in the wings. The Palestinian Authority holds some diplomatic currency in the West Bank, but in Gaza, political legitimacy has all but evaporated. Israel’s turn to micro-level power brokers like Abu Shabab isn’t unprecedented, but it does recall past experiments in proxy politics that spiraled beyond control. If history is any guide, empowering militias to fill a vacuum tends to deepen instability, not resolve it.
  
  What’s Next
  
  For now, backing local militias might chip away at Hamas’ territorial dominance—particularly in the south, where its grip has been strained. But without a credible roadmap for what comes after, today’s “partners” risk morphing into tomorrow’s rogue actors. History has no shortage of warlords born from policy vacuums.
  
  Expect mounting friction between these militias and remaining Hamas forces, which may retaliate aggressively to defend territorial control. Meanwhile, Israel faces increased scrutiny both domestically and internationally over the legality and wisdom of arming individuals accused of criminal activity.
  
  Further complications may arise if Abu Shabab’s militia begins to assert political ambitions or disrupt aid flows—potentially destabilizing fragile humanitarian efforts. The longer Israel avoids committing to a broader strategy for Gaza’s future, the more its tactical alliances could mutate into strategic liabilities.
  
  What It Means
  
  This move signals a deeper strategic improvisation by Israel, driven by a lack of alternatives rather than long-term vision. Arming Abu Shabab may serve a short-term tactical purpose, but it underscores Israel’s growing dependence on ad hoc solutions to fill the power vacuum in Gaza.
  
  By opting for local militias over the Palestinian Authority, Israel is both limiting its future negotiating partners and risking the creation of rogue actors it cannot easily contain. The decision also erodes the moral clarity of Israel’s position, opening it to criticism that it is fueling disorder while claiming to pursue stability.
  
  Ultimately, Israel’s willingness to arm a former aid looter reveals the paradox at the heart of its Gaza policy: it wants to eliminate Hamas without empowering the very institutions capable of replacing it. That contradiction is now playing out in real time—through a gunman in Rafah who promises food, shelter, and order in a war-torn enclave no longer governed by rules.