Cairo talks end with initial understanding among Palestinian factions on post-war governance of Gaza, sources say

Cairo, in its role as mediator between the Palestinian factions, has worked on an initial understanding between Hamas and Fatah about the principles of three key questions in the post-war scenario, two Egyptian sources informed of the negotiations told Mada Masr.

The understanding revolves around how the border between Egypt and the Gaza Strip will be managed, internal security in the Gaza Strip and the strip’s civil governance.

Hamas has governed the coastal enclave since 2007, when, following its victory in the legislative elections, it expelled Fatah and the unity government of the Palestinian territories broke down. Fatah remains in control of the Palestinian Authority, governing the West Bank from Ramallah.

Any understanding between Hamas and the PA is inherently temporary, the two sources told Mada Masr, given that Israel’s withdrawal from the strip is not guaranteed and its escalation against the Palestinian territories over recent weeks has sidelined negotiations over the future for Palestinians in Gaza.

Speaking as Israel continues its military escalation on Gaza’s north, both sources agreed that a ceasefire is unlikely to materialize in the remaining weeks of this year, and possibly not before the conclusion of the presidential elections in the United States in January 2025.

With Israel maintaining its strategic aim as the “elimination” of Hamas from the strip and refusing in negotiations so far to accept the group’s participation in Gaza’s future governance, the understanding between the Palestinian factions remains tentative.

Regardless, and after many postponements, Palestinian delegations traveled to and from Cairo on October 8 and 9 to talk through internal issues, with the Hamas delegation headed by Khalil al-Hayya, Hamas’s chief negotiator following Israel’s assassination of former political bureau head Ismail Haniyeh.

The first issue they discussed, and the priority for Cairo, according to the Egyptian officials, is the question of who will manage the Palestinian side of the border crossings out of the Gaza Strip.

In May, Israel invaded and occupied the Rafah border crossing that lies between the strip and Egypt, as well as the Philadelphi Axis, the five-kilometer zone adjacent to the border. The Rafah crossing was the only channel in and out of the coastal enclave not controlled by Israeli forces.

With Israel repeatedly claiming that Egypt has allowed weapons to be smuggled via Rafah to reach the Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s military wing, the future management of the border emerged as an impasse in negotiations. Egypt has denied the claims about its role in facilitating the transfer of weapons.

Sources speaking to Mada Masr in the weeks following Israel’s takeover of the Palestinian side of the crossing in May said that Egyptian authorities insist they will not operate the crossing as long as Israel maintains control over the Palestinian side. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, has repeatedly made public statements affirming that Israel does not intend to withdraw from the area.

Over recent weeks, the two sources, one of whom is close to both the Egyptian-Palestinian and Egyptian-Israeli negotiation tracks, said that Israel may withdraw from the crossing if a satisfactory security arrangement is reached.

A scenario being discussed at present — and which Egypt is considering, the sources said — would see the Rafah crossing located to a new site after the war, provided it remains limited to the passage of individuals. Food supplies and relief aid, meanwhile, would be transferred into the strip either via a new maritime point being prepared off the north coast of Egypt’s Arish, or via the Karam Abu Salem crossing, which connects Egypt to Gaza via Israeli-held territory and requires coordination between all three sides to achieve deliveries. Since the Rafah border was effectively closed by Israel’s invasion, aid deliveries from Egypt to the strip have been relocated to Karam Abu Salem.

Where Hamas and Fatah differ regarding the border concerns who will have ultimate authority security-wise, the sources said. Hamas views the PA representatives, who would only be present if approved by Hamas, as assistants to the group rather than full partners in managing the crossing.

The second issue discussed during the meetings in Cairo concerns internal security. Prior to Hamas’s takeover of the strip in 2007, security within Gaza was handled by PA personnel with various factional affiliations. Hamas is adamant that these same officials and security personnel cannot return to their previous roles managing internal security, according to the sources.

Hamas insists instead that the force should be restructured and that joint oversight should be established with Fatah, with assurances that there will be no security coordination with Israel whatsoever. Hamas demands that it maintain seniority, which remains contentious as Israel insists that any areas it withdraws from in Gaza must not come under Hamas's oversight. Security is to be discussed during talks between a higher level delegation from Hamas and Fatah at a later point, the sources said.

The third topic discussed at the Cairo meetings relates to the civil administration of Gaza. The two sources said that Hamas does not oppose the restoration of a Palestinian unity government managing civil affairs in both the West Bank and Gaza — the same civil administrative system that was in place before it took control of the strip in 2007.

There is a proposal for a temporary civil committee to be formed to govern Gaza prior to the potential restoration of a unity government  — a suggestion that Hamas can work with, according to the sources. Hamas, however, does not want the PA to lead the temporary civil committee. It nominated the PLO instead to lead the temporary committee, but called for a process to restructure the organization in parallel.

Another meeting is set to be held in Cairo next month to discuss steps toward a more comprehensive agreement.