Despite the atrocities committed by the occupation against civilians in Gaza since October 7, some residents have chosen to join armed entities operating under the occupation's command, a behavior described as abnormal and rare. This decision to align with armed entities under occupation command is considered a highly unusual and infrequent occurrence within the Palestinian context. These militias are unequivocally rejected by families, clans, and the broader Palestinian components, showing the widespread disapproval of their actions and affiliations. The societal fabric of Gaza, deeply rooted in communal solidarity and resistance against occupation, views such involvement as a profound deviation from established norms and collective aspirations.
Emergence and Allegations
The emergence of these armed groups has been met with strong condemnation from traditional Palestinian structures. Palestinian clans have unequivocally rejected involvement in these entities, issuing clear statements distancing themselves and their members from such collaborations. This firm stance from tribal leaders and family networks notes the deep-seated opposition to any form of cooperation with the occupying forces. The occupation itself monitored individuals and small groups cutting roads and engaging in theft under the cover of Israeli aircraft, indicating an awareness of these nascent groups' activities even in their early stages. These actions, observed by the occupation, laid some groundwork for the subsequent, more organized formation of militias.
The first known militia was founded by ياسر أبو شباب (Yasser Abu Shabab) in southern Gaza Strip, serving as a nucleus for subsequent militias that would later emerge across the territory. This initial militia formed specifically in the city of Rafah, a location significant given that many of its members were displaced from other areas of Gaza due to the ongoing conflict. The initial group began to take shape approximately at the end of November 2024, marking a key period in the conflict when the humanitarian situation was rapidly deteriorating and displacement was widespread. This timeline suggests a strategic effort to capitalize on the chaos and vulnerability of the population.
These militias are alleged to have affiliations with external countries such as the الإمارات (United Arab Emirates), suggesting a broader network of support and influence beyond the immediate conflict zone. There are claims of connections to Palestinian figures from the Authority and from فتح (Fatah), implying political dimensions to their formation and operations. The composition of these militia members raises significant concerns regarding their motives and backgrounds. Members of the militias are frequently described as prison graduates, individuals who have served time in correctional facilities, and often possess a history of criminal activity. Many are also identified as drug dealers, involved in illicit trade, and common thieves, indicating a propensity for lawlessness. A notable portion of these recruits are characterized as individuals with low education, which could make them more susceptible to manipulation or coercion. Disturbingly, some members are reported to have backgrounds linked to داعش (ISIS), raising alarms about potential extremist ideologies within these groups. In addition to these specific profiles, many are generally considered morally unsound, further eroding any potential legitimacy they might claim.
Before the ceasefire, these militias were involved in a range of activities that directly impacted the civilian population and exacerbated the humanitarian crisis. They engaged in stealing aid, diverting key humanitarian supplies intended for the suffering populace, thereby depriving those in desperate need. They were also observed blocking roads, impeding the movement of people and goods, and further disrupting daily life. Perhaps most egregiously, they were involved in looting properties, taking advantage of the widespread destruction and displacement to illegally seize personal belongings and assets from abandoned homes and businesses. These actions collectively painted a picture of opportunistic criminality operating under the guise of security or authority.
Current Operations and Resistance
At the beginning of the conflict, the occupation sought to establish a body within the Gaza Strip to manage security matters, indicating a strategic objective to create an internal mechanism for control and intelligence gathering. This search for an internal security apparatus shows the occupation's long-term goals for managing the territory. Currently, these militias undertake tasks that are directly detrimental to the Palestinian resistance and the safety of the population. Their operations include assassinations, targeting individuals perceived as threats or collaborators with the resistance, thereby creating an atmosphere of fear and distrust. They also engage in abductions, forcibly taking individuals, which further destabilizes communities. A particularly insidious tactic involves setting traps for resistance fighters, actively collaborating with the occupation to identify and neutralize those engaged in armed struggle. These actions demonstrate a clear alignment with the occupation's objectives, positioning the militias as direct adversaries of the Palestinian resistance.
Palestinian resistance factions, having understood the militias' tactics in collaboration with the occupation, have established ambushes against them. This strategic response by the resistance indicates a sophisticated understanding of the militias' operational methods and their coordination with Israeli forces. The resistance has adapted its own tactics to counter these internal threats, demonstrating its resolve to protect its fighters and the civilian population from these collaborators. In one documented instance, an agent was killed east of Rafah city, a decisive action taken specifically to prevent detection by Israeli aircraft. This incident notes the high stakes involved in these internal confrontations and the resistance's commitment to neutralizing threats that could compromise their operations or expose their positions to aerial surveillance and attack. The ongoing clashes between the resistance and these militias represent a complex and dangerous internal front within the broader conflict, adding another layer of challenge for the Palestinian struggle.
Historical Parallels and Fate
The scale of involvement in these militias remains relatively small, reflecting the widespread rejection of their activities by the vast majority of Gaza's population. Only hundreds out of Gaza's 2.5 million residents have joined the militias, according to reports, indicating that their numbers constitute a tiny fraction of the total population. This limited recruitment shows the deep-seated opposition to collaboration with the occupation and the strong social pressures against such affiliations. Despite the desperate circumstances and the immense pressure exerted by the occupation, the overwhelming majority of Gazans have refrained from joining these groups, reaffirming their commitment to national solidarity and resistance.
The militias' fate is anticipated to be either death, imprisonment, or clemency, outcomes that reflect the severe consequences typically associated with such collaborations in historical conflicts. This grim prognosis is based on historical precedents and the nature of internal conflicts involving collaboration with an occupying power. This outcome aligns with historical parallels, including militias from the 1936 Palestinian revolt, which saw similar internal divisions and harsh consequences for those who sided with the British Mandate authorities. Another significant parallel can be drawn with factions of the South Lebanon Army, also known as the Lahad Army, which collaborated with Israeli forces during their occupation of southern Lebanon. The eventual withdrawal of Israeli forces led to the collapse of the Lahad Army, with many of its members facing arrest, imprisonment, or forced exile. These historical examples serve as stark reminders that collaboration, particularly in a context of deeply entrenched national struggle, often leads to severe and often tragic ends for those involved. The potential for death in direct confrontations, lengthy imprisonment for treason, or, in rare cases, a form of clemency, are the paths that history suggests for such groups once the dynamics of the conflict inevitably shift.
