Netanyahu Rejects Palestinian Authority Role In Gaza Governance

In a series of high-stakes diplomatic meetings in Jerusalem on Tuesday, February 4, 2026, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a clear and uncompromising message to the United States and the international community regarding the future of the Gaza Strip. Meeting with White House special envoy Steve Witkoff, Netanyahu drew firm lines around the post-war governance of Gaza, the role of the Palestinian Authority (PA), and Israel’s security objectives—while also voicing deep skepticism about potential negotiations with Iran.

According to statements from Netanyahu’s office, the prime minister insisted that the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority "will not be involved in administering the Strip in any way." This declaration, reported by multiple outlets including Maariv and the Prime Minister’s Office itself, comes at a pivotal moment following the end of a two-year war in Gaza and the recent reopening of the Rafah crossing with Egypt. The United States, under President Donald Trump’s ceasefire plan, had left the PA’s post-war role in Gaza ambiguous, fueling speculation and debate about who should take responsibility for the territory’s administration and reconstruction.

To fill the immediate administrative vacuum, a technocratic body known as the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) was formed. Its stated mission: to handle day-to-day affairs until the PA completes a broader reform program. But the NCAG’s composition and symbols have already sparked controversy. On Monday, Netanyahu’s office criticized the committee’s logo for containing a symbol associated with the Palestinian Authority, suggesting an unacceptable link between the two entities. "Israel will not accept the use of a Palestinian Authority symbol; the Palestinian Authority will have no part in the administration of Gaza," his office stated unequivocally.

Responding to the uproar, the NCAG posted on X (formerly Twitter) that it "has been testing a range of visual concepts" and that its logo may evolve. The committee emphasized its focus on "humanitarian relief, civilian administration, recovery, and a livable future for Gaza," adding, "That’s the conversation that matters."

Yet the question of who should govern Gaza is far from academic. In his meeting with Witkoff, Netanyahu doubled down on Israel’s core demands: "the disarmament of Hamas, the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip, and the fulfilment of the war objectives prior to the reconstruction of the Strip." He made it clear that, from Israel’s perspective, neither Hamas nor the PA should play any role in the territory’s future administration. This insistence comes amid broader regional uncertainty, as diplomatic efforts intensify to chart a path toward stability in the wake of years of conflict.

The high-level nature of Tuesday’s meeting underscored the gravity of the moment. Senior Israeli security officials—including the head of Mossad, the defense minister, and the chief of staff—joined Netanyahu and Witkoff, signaling that Israel views the future of Gaza as a core security issue, not just a matter of routine diplomacy. As Maariv noted, the timing was especially sensitive: Witkoff was expected to resume a new round of regional talks within hours, with a particular focus on examining the possibility of renewing contacts with Tehran.

Israel’s concerns about Iran loomed large in the discussions. Netanyahu warned Witkoff, who is scheduled to meet Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Friday, February 7, that "Iran has proven time and time again that its promises cannot be trusted." This warning comes as Witkoff is also expected to meet with ministers from several Arab and Muslim nations to discuss a possible new nuclear accord with the Islamic Republic—a prospect that has set off alarm bells in Jerusalem. Israeli officials are determined to set firm boundaries before any talks begin, hoping to avoid being forced to respond to agreements reached without their input.

Netanyahu’s uncompromising stance was echoed in his briefing to U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, where he detailed serious violations discovered in the Gaza Strip, including the use of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) bags to hide weapons. This revelation, Netanyahu argued, underscores the need for strict security measures and vigilance before any reconstruction or normalization efforts are considered.

The role of the NCAG itself remains a subject of intense debate. While the committee is presented as a technocratic interim body, its leadership includes Ali Shaath, a former PA deputy minister. This connection has fueled Israeli suspicions that the PA could still wield influence behind the scenes, despite official denials. The Prime Minister’s Office made it clear earlier on Tuesday that it would not accept "the unauthorized adoption of the P.A. symbol by the technocratic committee tasked with overseeing Gaza."

For its part, the NCAG has sought to distance itself from political entanglements, reiterating its humanitarian focus and flexibility regarding its symbols and branding. Yet, as the debate over Gaza’s future intensifies, the committee’s actions and affiliations will likely remain under close scrutiny from both Israeli officials and the wider international community.

Meanwhile, the broader context of U.S. engagement in the region adds further complexity. The United States, by dispatching Witkoff for a second meeting with Netanyahu in less than two weeks, has signaled its commitment to remaining deeply involved in the post-war transition. But Washington’s parallel efforts to rekindle dialogue with Iran have complicated its relationships with traditional allies like Israel, who view the Islamic Republic with deep suspicion.

According to Maariv, Israeli officials see this phase as "critical" and believe it requires "early coordination and clear positions." Their aim is to avoid being caught off-guard by any regional agreements that might emerge from the flurry of diplomatic activity now underway. As one Israeli official put it, Israel wants to "set firm boundaries before talks begin and to avoid any situation in which Israel would later be forced to respond to agreements already reached."

As talks continue and the international community weighs its options, the future of Gaza remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that Israel is determined to assert its security interests and shape the post-war landscape on its own terms. Whether this approach will yield stability—or further tensions—remains to be seen. For now, all eyes are on Jerusalem, Washington, and Tehran as the next chapter in the region’s turbulent history unfolds.