عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Security Issues Complicate Tasks of ‘Technocratic Committee’ in Gaza Strip

Fighters from the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip, Feb. 20, 2025. (dpa)
Fighters from the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip, Feb. 20, 2025. (dpa)
TT
TT

Security Issues Complicate Tasks of ‘Technocratic Committee’ in Gaza Strip

Fighters from the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip, Feb. 20, 2025. (dpa)
Fighters from the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip, Feb. 20, 2025. (dpa)

The Palestinian National Committee tasked with administering the Gaza Strip is facing a number of challenges that go beyond Israel’s continued veto on its entry into the enclave via the Rafah crossing. These challenges extend to several issues related to the handover of authority from Hamas, foremost among them the security file.

Nasman and the Interior Ministry File

During talks held to form the committee, and even after its members were selected, Hamas repeatedly sought to exclude retired Palestinian intelligence officer Sami Nasman from the interior portfolio, which would be responsible for security conditions inside the Gaza Strip. Those efforts failed amid insistence by mediators and the United States that Nasman remain in his post, after Rami Hilles, who had been assigned the religious endowments and religious affairs portfolio, was removed in response to Hamas’s demands, as well as those of other Palestinian factions.

A kite flies over a camp for displaced people in Khan Younis, in the Gaza Strip, on Saturday. (AFP)

Sources close to the committee told Asharq Al-Awsat that Hamas continues to insist that its security personnel remain in service within the agencies that will operate under the committee’s supervision. This position is rejected not only by the committee’s leadership, but also by the executive body of the Peace Council, as well as other parties including the United States and Israel.

The sources said this issue further complicates the committee’s ability to assume its duties in an orderly manner, explaining that Hamas, by insisting on certain demands related to its security employees and police forces, seeks to impose its presence in one way or another within the committee’s work.

The sources added that there is a prevailing sense within the committee and among other parties that Hamas is determined, by all means, to keep its members within the new administrative framework overseeing the Gaza Strip. They noted that Hamas has continued to make new appointments within the leadership ranks of its security services, describing this as part of attempts to undermine plans prepared by Sami Nasman for managing security.

The new logo of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, published on its page on X.

Hamas Denies the Allegations

Sources within Hamas denied those accusations. They told Asharq Al-Awsat that Sami Nasman, “as we understand from multiple parties, does not plan to come to Gaza at this time, which raises serious questions about his commitment to managing the Interior portfolio. Without his presence inside the enclave, he cannot exercise his authority, and that would amount to failure.”

The sources said the movement had many reservations about Nasman, who had previously been convicted by Hamas-run courts over what it described as “sabotage” plots. However, given the current reality, Hamas has no objection to his assumption of those responsibilities.

The sources said government institutions in Gaza are ready to hand over authority, noting that each ministry has detailed procedures and a complete framework in place to ensure a smooth transfer without obstacles. They stressed that Hamas is keen on ensuring the success of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza.

The sources did not rule out the possibility that overarching policies could be imposed on the committee, which would affect its work and responsibilities inside the Gaza Strip, reducing it to merely an instrument for implementing those policies.

Hamas has repeatedly welcomed the committee’s work in public statements, saying it will fully facilitate its mission.

A meeting of the Gaza Administration Committee in Cairo. (File Photo – Egyptian State Information Service)

The Committee’s Position

In a statement issued on Saturday, the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza said that statements and declarations from inside the enclave regarding readiness to transfer the management of all institutions and public facilities represent a step in the interest of citizens and pave the way for the committee to fully assume its responsibilities during the transitional phase.

The committee said that the announcement of readiness for an orderly transition constitutes a pivotal moment for the start of its work as the interim administration of the Gaza Strip, and a real opportunity to halt the humanitarian deterioration and preserve the resilience of residents who have endured severe suffering over the past period, according to the text of the statement.

“Our current priority is to ensure the unimpeded flow of aid, launch the reconstruction process, and create the conditions necessary to strengthen the unity of our people,” the committee said. “This path must be based on clear and defined understandings characterized by transparency and implementability, and aligned with the 20-point plan and UN Security Council Resolution 2803.”

Fighters from Hamas ahead of a prisoner exchange, Feb. 1, 2025. (EPA)

The committee stressed that it cannot effectively assume its responsibilities unless it is granted full administrative and civilian authority necessary to carry out its duties, in addition to policing responsibilities.

“Responsibility requires genuine empowerment that enables it to operate efficiently and independently. This would open the door to serious international support for reconstruction efforts, pave the way for a full Israeli withdrawal, and help restore daily life to normal,” it said.

The committee affirmed its commitment to carrying out this task with a sense of responsibility and professional discipline, and with the highest standards of transparency and accountability, calling on mediators and all relevant parties to expedite the resolution of outstanding issues without delay.

Armed Men in Hospitals

In a related development, the Hamas-run Ministry of Interior and National Security said in a statement on Saturday that it is making continuous and intensive efforts to ensure there are no armed presences within hospitals, particularly involving members of certain families who enter them. The ministry said this is aimed at preserving the sanctity of medical facilities and protecting them as purely humanitarian zones that must remain free of any tensions or armed displays.

The ministry said it has deployed a dedicated police force for field monitoring and enforcement, and to take legal action against violators. It acknowledged facing on-the-ground challenges, particularly in light of repeated Israeli strikes on its personnel while carrying out their duties, which it said has affected the speed of addressing some cases. It said it will continue to carry out its responsibilities with firmness.

Local Palestinian media reported late Friday that Doctors Without Borders decided to suspend all non-urgent medical procedures at Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis starting Jan. 20, 2026, due to concerns related to the management of the facility and the preservation of its neutrality, as well as security breaches inside the hospital complex.

US President Donald Trump holds a document establishing the Peace Council for Gaza in Davos, Switzerland, Jan. 27, 2026. (Reuters)

The organization said in a statement attributed to it, not published on its official platforms or website, that its staff and patients had, in recent months, observed the presence of armed men, some masked, in various areas of the complex, along with incidents of intimidation, arbitrary arrests of patients, and suspected weapons transfers. It said this posed a direct threat to the safety of staff and patients.

Asharq Al-Awsat attempted to obtain confirmation from the organization regarding the authenticity of the statement but received no response.

Field Developments

On the ground, Israeli violations in the Gaza Strip continued. Gunfire from military vehicles and drones, along with artillery shelling, caused injuries in Khan Younis in the south and north of Nuseirat in central Gaza.

Daily demolition operations targeting infrastructure and homes also continued in areas along both sides of the so-called yellow line, across various parts of the enclave.

 

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

What We Know and Don't Know about the Emerging Deal to End the Iran War

Government supporters hold Iranian flags and pictures of Iran's Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, during a ceremony honoring the armed forces and those killed in the war with Israel and the US in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, May 24, 2026. (AP)
Government supporters hold Iranian flags and pictures of Iran's Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, during a ceremony honoring the armed forces and those killed in the war with Israel and the US in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, May 24, 2026. (AP)
TT
TT

What We Know and Don't Know about the Emerging Deal to End the Iran War

Government supporters hold Iranian flags and pictures of Iran's Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, during a ceremony honoring the armed forces and those killed in the war with Israel and the US in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, May 24, 2026. (AP)
Government supporters hold Iranian flags and pictures of Iran's Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, during a ceremony honoring the armed forces and those killed in the war with Israel and the US in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, May 24, 2026. (AP)

A deal appears to be emerging between the United States and Iran to end the war and open the Strait of Hormuz, and US President Donald Trump over the weekend said it had been “largely negotiated.”

It is not clear when or how the deal might be finalized and when its various parts will take effect. Trump spoke after calls with allies in the Middle East, including a separate call with Israel. Details come from two regional officials and a US official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive negotiations.

Here’s what we know and don’t know:

The war would end

In the 12 weeks since the US and Israel launched the war with attacks on Iran that killed senior officials including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Tehran has insisted that any deal focus on ending the fighting on all fronts. That includes Lebanon, where the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militant group has been fighting Israel since two days into the war.

A fragile ceasefire has held since April 7. An end to the war would ease concerns throughout a region that saw Gulf states like the United Arab Emirates struck by Iranian missiles and drones. It would allow for global shipping, including an estimated 20% of the world's oil and natural gas, to begin flowing through the Strait of Hormuz again. It also would allow the rebuilding of energy and other infrastructure in the region.

Both regional officials said the draft deal includes an end to the war between Israel and Hezbollah, as well as a commitment to not interfere in the domestic affairs of countries in the region including Iran. That’s a critical reference to Iran’s support for proxies, which also include the Houthi militants in Yemen, Hamas militants in Gaza and Shiite armed groups in Iraq.

The US wants Israel to have a free hand to respond to what it views as threats in Lebanon while Iran rejects it, one regional official said. The US official said the deal would guarantee Israel’s right to act against imminent threats in self-defense.

The Strait of Hormuz would reopen gradually

Iran’s nuclear program, missile program and support for armed proxies were the stated reasons for the US and Israel attacking Iran. But Tehran’s retaliatory grip on the Strait of Hormuz quickly shot to the top of global concerns as hundreds of ships carrying oil, natural gas, fertilizer and other supplies were stranded.

Under the emerging agreement, the strait would gradually reopen in parallel with the US ending the blockade of Iran’s ports it launched on April 17, the regional officials said. The blockade has limited Iran’s ability to ship its oil and bring in badly needed cash for its long-suffering economy.

The US would allow Iran to sell its oil through sanctions waivers, said one of the officials, who has been briefed on the negotiations. Sanctions relief and the release of Iran’s billions of dollars in frozen funds would be negotiated during a 60-day period, the official said.

Iran would give up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium

Iran’s nuclear program and international concerns over its possible pursuit of a nuclear weapon underlie all tensions, and the US and Israel have considered highly complex military operations to go in and take out its highly enriched uranium.

Under the potential deal, Tehran would agree to give up that stockpile of highly enriched uranium, according to the regional officials. One official, with direct knowledge of the negotiations, said how Iran would give it up would be subject to further talks over the 60-day period. Some would likely be diluted and the rest transferred to a third country, potentially Russia, the official said. Russia has offered to take it.

A US official confirmed the 60-day period and said if Iran doesn’t give up its stockpile, there will be no sanctions relief.

Iran has 440.9 kilograms (972 pounds) of uranium that is enriched up to 60% purity, a short, technical step from weapons-grade levels of 90%, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Iran says it has an “inalienable” right to nuclear technology while insisting its program is peaceful. On Sunday, President Masoud Pezeshkian told state TV they were ready “to assure the world that we are not after a nuclear weapon.”

Trump on Sunday on social media said that “our relationship with Iran is becoming a much more professional and productive one. They must understand, however, that they cannot develop or procure a Nuclear Weapon or Bomb.”

What appears to be missing

Other issues have not been mentioned in descriptions of the emerging deal, including the status of Iran's uranium enrichment.

Another is Iran's missile program, which Israel in particular has sought to destroy.

And while the United States and Israel entered the war with stated ambitions of seeing Iranians rise up against their government after nationwide protests early in the year, any discussion of leadership change in Tehran appears to be out.

As for Iran's past stated aims during negotiations, there appears to be no mention of any withdrawal of US forces from the region, or for reparations for the damage the war has caused.

Features

Attacks on Ebola Treatment Centers Are One of Several Problems Affecting Congo’s Outbreak Response

People wait to be attended at the Mongbwalu General Referral Hospital, as aid agencies intensify efforts to contain an Ebola outbreak caused by the Bundibugyo virus in Mongbwalu, Democratic Republic of Congo, May 23, 2026. (Reuters)
People wait to be attended at the Mongbwalu General Referral Hospital, as aid agencies intensify efforts to contain an Ebola outbreak caused by the Bundibugyo virus in Mongbwalu, Democratic Republic of Congo, May 23, 2026. (Reuters)
TT
TT

Attacks on Ebola Treatment Centers Are One of Several Problems Affecting Congo’s Outbreak Response

People wait to be attended at the Mongbwalu General Referral Hospital, as aid agencies intensify efforts to contain an Ebola outbreak caused by the Bundibugyo virus in Mongbwalu, Democratic Republic of Congo, May 23, 2026. (Reuters)
People wait to be attended at the Mongbwalu General Referral Hospital, as aid agencies intensify efforts to contain an Ebola outbreak caused by the Bundibugyo virus in Mongbwalu, Democratic Republic of Congo, May 23, 2026. (Reuters)

Arson attacks on Ebola treatment centers in eastern Congo show how authorities are faced with a number of serious complications — including a backlash in local communities — as they try to stop an outbreak of an infectious disease that has been declared a global health emergency.

The burning of the centers in two towns at the heart of the outbreak shows the anger in a region beset by violence linked to armed rebel groups, the displacement of a large number of people, the failure of local government and international aid cuts that experts say have stripped health facilities in vulnerable communities.

"A devastating set of emergencies are converging," said the Physicians for Human Rights nonprofit.

Here's a look at the longstanding crises in eastern Congo that have made it home to one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters, and how they are now affecting the response to a rare type of Ebola:

The region has a constant threat of violence

Eastern Congo has seen violence by dozens of separate rebel groups for years, some of them with links to foreign countries or Islamic State.

The Rwanda-backed M23 rebels are in control of parts of the region. While the Congolese government still largely controls the northeastern Ituri Province, which is the epicenter of the Ebola outbreak, that control is tenuous. The Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan group linked to ISIS, is one of the dominant rebel groups there and responsible for violent attacks against civilian targets.

Before the outbreak, Doctors Without Borders said in an assessment of the situation in Ituri that the insecurity had worsened recently, causing doctors and nurses to flee and leaving overwhelmed health facilities and "catastrophic" conditions in some parts.

Nearly a million people are displaced in Ituri

Nearly 1 million people in Ituri have been displaced from their homes by conflict, according to the United Nations humanitarian office.

That means this Ebola outbreak is "unfolding in communities already facing insecurity, displacement and fragile health care systems," said Gabriela Arenas, Regional Operations Coordinator at the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

It's a significant concern that the disease might spread to the large displacement camps near the city of Bunia, where the first cases were reported.

Authorities have announced more than 700 suspected Ebola cases and more than 170 suspected deaths, mostly in Ituri. But cases have been reported in two other eastern provinces, North Kivu and South Kivu, where M23 are in control, and also in the neighboring country of Uganda.

That means that part of the outbreak in Congo is being managed by the government and part by rebel authorities, with an array of aid agencies also helping.

Aid cuts were devastating for eastern Congo

Health experts say international aid cuts last year by the United States and other rich nations were devastating for eastern Congo because it has so many problems.

The cuts "reduced the capacity to detect and respond to infectious disease outbreaks," said Thomas McHale, public health director at Physicians for Human Rights. Congo has had more than a dozen previous Ebola outbreaks.

Aid groups fighting this outbreak on the ground say they don't have the equipment they need, like face shields and suits to protect health workers from infection, testing kits, and body bags and other materials needed to safely bury the bodies of victims, which can be highly contagious.

"We have made requests to different partners, but we have not yet really received anything," said Julienne Lusenge, president of Women’s Solidarity for Inclusive Peace and Development, an aid group operating a small hospital near Bunia.

"We only have hand sanitizer and a few masks for the nurses."

The Bundibugyo type of Ebola virus responsible for the outbreak has no approved vaccine or treatment.

Health and aid workers also face anger from local communities

The burning of two treatment centers by people in the Rwampara and Mongbwalu areas — which have the highest case counts — show how a backlash in some communities is further complicating the response.

Colin Thomas-Jensen, director of impact at the Aurora Humanitarian Initiative, said the attacks may reflect the "built-in skepticism and anger" of people in eastern Congo over how the region has been treated, with years of violence from foreign-linked rebel groups and a failure of their government and international peacekeepers to protect them, he said.

Another source of anger has been the strict protocols around the burial of suspected victims of Ebola, which authorities are taking charge of wherever they can to prevent further spread of the disease when families prepare the bodies and people gather for a funeral.

The first burning of an Ebola center in Rwampara was by a group of local youths trying to retrieve the body of a friend who died, according to witnesses and police. The witnesses said the crowd accused the foreign aid group operating there of lying about Ebola.

Authorities in northeastern Congo have now banned funeral wakes and gatherings of more than 50 people in an effort to curb the spread, and armed soldiers and police are guarding some burials carried out by aid workers.

Features

Report: Netanyahu Relegated from Partner to Passenger in Trump's War on Iran

US President Donald Trump, right, meets with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office of the White House, in Washington, Feb. 4, 2025. (AFP)
US President Donald Trump, right, meets with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office of the White House, in Washington, Feb. 4, 2025. (AFP)
TT
TT

Report: Netanyahu Relegated from Partner to Passenger in Trump's War on Iran

US President Donald Trump, right, meets with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office of the White House, in Washington, Feb. 4, 2025. (AFP)
US President Donald Trump, right, meets with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office of the White House, in Washington, Feb. 4, 2025. (AFP)

In the run-up to the February 28 attack on Iran, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel was not only in the Situation Room with President Trump, he was leading the discussion, predicting that a joint US-Israeli strike could very well lead to the demise of the regime in Iran.

“Just a few weeks later, after those sanguine assurances proved inaccurate, the picture was starkly different. Israel was so thoroughly sidelined by the Trump administration, two Israeli defense officials said, that its leaders were cut almost entirely out of the loop on truce talks between the United States and Iran,” said a New York Times report on Saturday.

“Starved of information from their closest ally, the Israelis have been forced to pick up what they can about the back-and-forth between Washington and Tehran through their connections with leaders and diplomats in the region as well as their own surveillance from inside the Iranian regime,” said the two officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

“The banishment from the cockpit to economy class has potentially significant consequences for Israel, and especially for the prime minister, who faces an uphill re-election battle this year.”

“Netanyahu has long sold himself to Israeli voters as a kind of Trump whisperer,” uniquely capable of enlisting and retaining the president’s support. In a televised speech early in the war, he portrayed himself as the president’s peer, assuring Israelis that he talked to Trump “almost every day,” exchanging ideas and advice, “and deciding together.”

“He had led Israel to war in February with grand visions of achieving a goal he has pursued for decades: stopping Iran’s push for nuclear weapons once and for all. As the war began with a stunning decapitation of much of the government in Tehran, it seemed as though an even more grandiose dream might come true: the toppling of the regime.”

“But many in Trump’s inner circle had always viewed the idea of regime change as absurd. And it wasn’t long before American and Israeli priorities began to diverge more, especially after Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, sending oil prices soaring and pressuring Trump into agreeing to a ceasefire.”

Far from vanquished, Tehran has behaved as though it won the war, merely by surviving it. Israel, by contrast, has seen its biggest objectives for the war elude its grasp.

Netanyahu set three goals at the start of the war: toppling the regime, destroying Iran’s nuclear program and eliminating its missile program. None have been realized.

Instead of burying Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a recent American proposal called for a 20-year suspension of, or moratorium on, Iranian nuclear activity and that time frame may have gotten smaller in subsequent proposals. That raises the prospect that an eventual deal could resemble the Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear accord, which Netanyahu fought against at the time and Trump exited from three years later.

With the Trump administration excluding Israel from the negotiations, Iran’s arsenal of ballistic missiles may have been left off the table, as far as Israeli officials know. In that respect, any deal would fail to improve on the 2015 agreement, which Netanyahu assailed in part because it did not address Iran’s missiles.

It would also be a dismaying setback for the Israeli public, for whom life largely ground to a halt as the nation was bombarded by Iranian missiles in March and April.

There are other concerns for Israel about the possible contours of a US-Iran agreement, including a lifting of economic sanctions against Tehran. Doing so could amount to an economic lifeline, flooding Iran with billions of dollars that it could then use to rearm and to help its proxy forces, like Hezbollah, replenish their own arsenals with weapons to use against Israel.

While little is certain yet about the shape of an eventual deal — and any agreement could still be postponed by a renewal of fighting — what seems clear is that Israel’s partnership with the United States has come at a steep price. A country that for generations prided itself on “defending ourselves by ourselves,” and whose leaders exasperated a succession of American presidents with their hardheaded recalcitrance, is now making little secret of its need, and willingness, to submit to Trump’s demands.

As Defense Minister Israel Katz said on April 23, as Trump threatened to resume the war and bomb Iran back to the “Stone Age”: “We are only waiting for the green light from the US.”

“That admission was a humbling climbdown from the heady first days of the war, when the two countries achieved air supremacy and were so confident of success that they urged the Iranian people to topple the regime and secure their future,” said the NYT.

Within two weeks, it became clear that the war would not produce instant victory, as Trump had hoped. The White House, and some Israeli leaders, put aside their hopes for regime change, and Trump turned his attention toward ending the fighting.

“He had viewed Netanyahu as a war ally, but not as a close partner when it came to negotiating with the Iranians,” American officials familiar with his thinking said; in fact, he considered Netanyahu someone “who needed to be restrained when it comes to resolving conflicts.”

Israel soon found itself demoted from “equal partner” to something more akin to a “subcontractor” to the US military.

Israel would often clear plans with the United States, only to have the Trump administration throw it under the bus after those plans were executed, such as when Israel struck the South Pars natural gas field and oil facilities along the Gulf in southern Iran.

Trump even pressured Israel to bring a premature halt to its campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon within days after the ceasefire on April 8, forcing Israel to accept restraints on its fighting with a hostile adversary right on its border.

“The sidelining is particularly hard to take for some Israeli officials, who, speaking on condition of anonymity, noted that the country willingly shouldered some of the war’s more controversial assignments.”

For Netanyahu, it has meant repeatedly recalibrating his rhetoric, and even adjusting his description of Israel’s war objectives, in response to Trump’s frequent vacillations.

After initially telling his citizens that Israel’s goals were to “remove” the existential threats of an Iranian nuclear weapon and of its ballistic missile arsenal, by March 12 Netanyahu was articulating a new idea. This one downplayed the fact that those threats had not been removed, and instead exalted Israel’s close partnership with the United States.

“Threats come and threats go, but when we become a regional power, and in certain fields a global power, we have the strength to push dangers away from us and secure our future,” he said. What gave Israel such newfound strength in the eyes of its adversaries, Netanyahu asserted, was his alliance with Trump — “an alliance like no other.”

 

*David M. Halbfinger and Ronen Bergman for The New York Times