Conspicuously absent from discussions of Gaza’s future governance is the Palestinian Authority — the internationally recognized governing body that administers parts of the West Bank. Its relationship to the Board of Peace and to the transitional committee named by the US is ambiguous, and its ultimate role in Gaza’s future remains undefined.
The US-named 15-member transitional committee is led by former Palestinian Authority deputy minister Ali Shaath — a connection that suggests the PA’s involvement is anticipated but not yet formalized. Former UN envoy Nickolay Mladenov, who oversees the committee, has indicated that it needs Hamas to hand over power and ceasefire violations to stop before it can begin functioning.
The PA’s own credibility with Palestinians in Gaza is limited. It was effectively expelled from Gaza by Hamas in 2007 and has not governed there since. Many Palestinians in Gaza view the PA with suspicion — as a body that has been ineffective, corrupt, or complicit with Israeli occupation. Installing PA-linked figures as post-Hamas administrators risks inheriting those credibility problems.
At the same time, the PA represents the internationally recognized framework of Palestinian governance. Any solution that bypasses it entirely risks creating a further fragmentation of Palestinian political representation that could complicate any future state-building effort. The Trump administration’s approach — a transitional committee with PA connections but distinct identity — appears designed to thread this needle.
Whether that approach can succeed depends on conditions that do not yet exist: Hamas handing over power, Israel granting entry permissions, and the transitional committee establishing legitimacy with a population that has reasons to be skeptical of all outside-imposed governance arrangements.