Palestinian political unity between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) is widely considered a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for a cease-fire in Gaza to become truly sustainable and for long-term peace to be viable.

A unified Palestinian political body addresses core structural problems that have repeatedly derailed past truces and reconstruction efforts. The current division creates two rival authorities with conflicting agendas and competing sources of legitimacy, making a lasting agreement functionally impossible.

I. The Argument for Unity: Enhancing Cease-fire Durability

Palestinian unity would make a cease-fire more sustainable by resolving three critical functional and political challenges: accountability, governance, and international support.

A. Centralized Authority and Accountability

The fundamental problem with previous cease-fires has been the lack of a single, credible Palestinian guarantor with control over all factions.

• Preventing Spoiler Actions: With the PA ruling the West Bank and Hamas ruling Gaza, any cease-fire agreed upon by one side is constantly threatened by the actions of the other, or by smaller, more radical groups that neither fully controls. A unified political structure, ideally under the umbrella of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), would create a single command structure responsible for upholding the truce across all Palestinian territories.

• Enforcement Mechanism: A unified government would have the institutional legitimacy and (theoretically) the security apparatus to monitor and enforce the cease-fire in Gaza, preventing rogue rocket fire or attacks that give Israel a pretext to resume military operations. Without this internal security control, a cease-fire is merely a temporary pause.

B. Post-War Governance and Reconstruction

The question of who governs Gaza and manages its reconstruction is central to any long-term stability. The international community, led by Western and Gulf nations, is unwilling to fund a massive reconstruction effort only for a de facto Hamas government to retake control or for the cycle of conflict to repeat.

• Facilitating Reconstruction: Only a unified Palestinian government, widely recognized by the international community, can unlock the billions of dollars needed for rebuilding Gaza's infrastructure and housing. International donors demand that the funds be managed by a technocratic, civilian administration separate from a militant wing, a condition the PA is better positioned to meet than Hamas's de facto authority.

• Integrating Gaza and the West Bank: A sustainable political solution requires treating Gaza and the West Bank as a single political unit—the basis for a future Palestinian state. Unity would end the physical and political separation, allowing the PA to take over civil administration, customs, and border control in Gaza, thereby moving towards a cohesive national entity.

C. Securing International Legitimacy and Peace Process

A divided Palestinian leadership is inherently weak and cannot negotiate for a final status agreement with Israel.

• Negotiating Power: A unified Palestinian voice would strengthen the ability of Palestinian leadership to negotiate for a final, durable political solution, which is the only real path to ending the conflict entirely. It would shift the focus from merely managing the conflict between Israel and Hamas to a negotiation between two recognized political entities on a two-state solution.

• International Recognition: Unity would help overcome the international isolation of Gaza. Hamas has long been subject to the "Quartet principles" (renouncing violence, recognizing Israel, and abiding by past agreements), which block Western and UN engagement. A unified government, even one that includes Hamas politically, could operate under the PA/PLO's banner, which already has international recognition.

II. The Challenges: Why Unity is Elusive

Despite its clear benefits, achieving and maintaining unity between the Fatah-led PA and Hamas remains a formidable challenge due to profound ideological, political, and security hurdles.

A. The Core Ideological Divide

The historical and ideological rift is the deepest barrier to unity.

• Resistance vs. Negotiation: Hamas is fundamentally an Islamist resistance movement whose charter rejects Israel's right to exist, viewing its military wing as non-negotiable until liberation is achieved. Fatah/PA, on the other hand, is a secular nationalist movement committed to a two-state solution through the Oslo Accords and negotiation. Reconciling these diametrically opposed political roads—resistance and diplomacy—is nearly impossible.

• Disarmament: For a unity government to be acceptable to Israel and the West, Hamas's military wing would need to be dissolved or its weapons transferred to the PA. Hamas views this as political suicide and capitulation, guaranteeing that any reconciliation will stall over the issue of who controls security in Gaza.

B. The Internal Political and Security Schism

The 2007 violent split that resulted in Hamas's de facto control over Gaza created two parallel and mutually distrustful administrations.

• Parallel Institutions: After years of separation, Gaza and the West Bank have separate security forces, judicial systems, and civil service administrations. Integrating these hostile bureaucracies, which often view the other's personnel as criminals or traitors, is an immense logistical and political task.

• PA's Weakness: The PA, weakened by decades of occupation and its own governance failures, lacks the credibility and the security muscle to assume immediate control in Gaza, particularly without the cooperation of Hamas's security forces. Furthermore, many Palestinians view the PA as a collaborator with the Israeli occupation, while Hamas's popularity remains high in both territories, complicating the PA's ability to govern even if unity were achieved.

C. External Veto Power

Both the US and Israel view a Hamas-inclusive Palestinian government as unacceptable.

• Israeli Rejection: Successive Israeli governments have consistently refused to negotiate with or recognize any Palestinian government that includes Hamas, on the grounds that it is a terrorist organization committed to Israel's destruction. This external veto ensures that any unity government would face an immediate blockade and sanctions, making it non-functional.

• PA as an Obstacle: The PA itself, under pressure from Israel and the US, has often been a "spoiler" to reconciliation attempts, for example, by cutting funds to Gaza's civil servants to pressure Hamas. The leadership in Ramallah fears that genuine unity would legitimize Hamas and eventually lead to their own political marginalization.

III. Conclusion: Unity as the Cornerstone of a Political Horizon

While a simple political handshake between the PA and Hamas would not guarantee a permanent cease-fire, a functioning Palestinian national unity government is the single most important structural reform required to move beyond a temporary truce.

The current situation of division ensures instability by keeping the doors open for competing agendas, external manipulation, and internal 'spoiling.' A unified, legitimate administration could provide the single address for international security guarantees, humanitarian aid, and a negotiated political solution.

Without this unified political foundation, the current cycle—fragile cease-fire, reconstruction stalled by donor wariness, and eventual breakdown—is destined to repeat, regardless of the temporary calm achieved by any specific agreement. The path to a sustainable cease-fire is therefore inextricably linked to the realization of an inclusive, unified Palestinian national project.

By Jo Ikeji-Uju

https://ubuntusafa.com

https://ubuntusafa.com/Ikeji