Death of anti-Hamas militia head shows that Israel won’t dictate Gaza’s future leadership

Yasser Abu Shabab, the head of the violent Israeli-backed Gaza gang.

Jack Khoury writes in Haaretz on 4 December 2025:

Thursday’s announcement of the death of Yasser Abu Shabab wasn’t just a local security incident in the Gaza Strip. It also revealed, once again, the enormous gap between the story Israel tells itself and Gaza’s complex reality.

The defense establishment and the media portrayed Abu Shabab as an “alternative to Hamas,” someone who could help rule Gaza after the war. But he turned out to be a controversial figure even in the limited area where he operated. Due to the multiplicity of armed groups, tribes, alliances and unsettled accounts in the area, he was surrounded by enemies.

His death surprised almost no one in Gaza. Many people wanted to see him gone. They included what remains of Hamas’ leadership, who saw him as a threat, or at least a nuisance, to their rule; armed rivals who shared territory and influence with him; members of clans harmed by him and his family; and people within his own tribe who have been embarrassed by his actions for years.

The statements that flooded social media immediately after his death was announced showed the extent to which he had been a wanted man. Everyone quickly adopted a story, ascribed blame or tried to clear his name. But the conclusion was clear. There is no force strong enough to protect people who collaborate with Israel.

Even his own tribe, the Tarabin, was quick to renounce him after his death. In a statement, it termed him a “dark episode,” adding that his death “closed a shameful chapter.” It also promised not to allow any other member of the tribe to participate in militias “that serve the occupation.”

This wasn’t just an attempt to separate itself from him. It was a sociopolitical declaration of intent whose purpose was to send all Gazans the message that “this man wasn’t part of us, so don’t settle accounts with us.”

The direct cause of his death, according to various reports, was a clash between Abu Shabab and members of the Abu Snima family, which is known for its criminal activity. A gunfight erupted after Abu Shabab arrogantly refused to release a member of the family whom he had arrested. And that became the spark for a broader settling of accounts in the area. The picture that emerges is that Abu Shabab didn’t build a leadership, but merely power struggles.

This is where Israel entered the picture. For years, the Israeli establishment – the media, the defense establishment and the political world – has tried to “create partners,” meaning local Palestinians who seemed powerful and dominant enough, but were also willing to say the things Israelis like to hear. And thus, momentary “stars” emerged, like Abu Shabab in southern Gaza.

Abu Shabab was exactly the kind of person Israel likes to have as partners. He was armed but willing to cooperate; he opposed Hamas but wasn’t affiliated with the Palestinian Authority; and he seemed like someone who could keep “the street” in line.

But in reality, he was a criminal whose power existed only in areas where Israel remained in physical control. Beyond the borders of Israeli influence, he had no power, no legitimacy and no buyers for his wares.

That type of person is nothing new. Just ask members of the South Lebanon Army, who relied on Israel for two decades until Israel pulled the rug out from under their feet overnight through its unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon.

Anyone who is given power from the outside but has no domestic base of support is living on borrowed time. Yet Israel, once again, built an illusion around someone out of its own need to find a person it deemed suitable to run Gaza rather than out of the Palestinians’ genuine leadership needs.

Abu Shabab’s death offers an important lesson – leadership can’t grow from Israeli dictates. Abu Shabab seemed like a strongman, yet in reality, he was a weak link who depended on weapons, chaos and the double game played by both local actors and Israel.

But Gaza isn’t a place where you can impose a leader from above and expect the grass roots to accept him. The territory’s history is stronger than any effort to engineer it.

This article is reproduced in its entirety