Why does Israel fail to impose leadership on the Palestinians?

Since the early days of the genocide against Gaza, it has been clear that producing and engineering chaos is a primary objective of the Israeli machine. For Israel, chaos is not a side effect, but a political and security tool used to reshape the Palestinian environment and dismantle its community structure. At the heart of this engineering is the attempt to manufacture 'ready-made' Palestinian faces presented as leadership alternatives or moderate voices speaking in the language of the occupation.

However, these faces, no matter how polished, fall apart because Israel cannot redefine the Palestinian in a way that suits its security imagination. A people cannot be manufactured in the laboratories of occupation, and identity cannot be reshaped from the outside, and reality is stronger than all political engineering processes.

Thus, it is not surprising that Israel has been working for years to produce a model of the Palestinian who can be 'dealt with', a character marketed as a capable leadership alternative who can ensure calm and serve the occupation's vision for the next day. These figures are not the product of a Palestinian need, but an Israeli project aimed at surpassing the real representation of the people and fragmenting society.

The killing of Yasir Abu Shabab was a sign of the destabilization of this project. He was one of the prominent faces of collaboration with the occupation in Rafah, depicted in Israeli discourse as a potential candidate to manage the south, or as someone who could fill a political vacuum post-war. However, the moment his death was announced revealed the fragility of this construct, as what was considered a 'partner' had no legitimacy, no real local base, and no protection in an environment well aware of the meaning of aligning with the occupation.

Since news of his death spread, a wave of contradictory narratives exploded: familial, tribal, criminal, internal, each side attempting to shape the event to serve its interests. Despite the multiplicity of narratives, they share a single goal: to absolve the occupation of responsibility and deny the resistance's ability to carry out the operation behind Israeli control lines.
The narrative that serves Israel more than others is simple: the man was killed in an 'internal dispute', there was no organized operation, no breach of besieged Gaza, and no failure in the 'buffer zone'.

However, ignoring or downplaying the role of the resistance does not change the fact that many in Gaza were not surprised by his death. He had been wanted by various parties: families harmed by the actions of his group, elements who saw him as a local threat, and even within his tribe, some expressed shame over his role for many years. All of this reflects a clear truth:
There is no power capable of protecting those who choose to work under the cloak of occupation.

For years, Israel has sought to find local figures that suggest capability and dominance, appearing suitable for speaking its political and security language. Abu Shabab fell within this context: armed, anti-Hamas, outside the authority's framework, presented as someone who could 'maintain security'. However, behind this description lay a more naked truth: his influence was a direct reflection of the occupation's presence in specific areas, and all that lay outside was land untouched, unknown, and lacking any legitimacy therein.

The killing of Abu Shabab does not end the phenomenon of collaboration, but it reveals the limitations of the occupation's project to impose leadership from above. Palestinian leadership cannot be imposed by military means, nor produced in security rooms, nor planted within a living community that possesses its experience and consciousness, and to a large extent, its immunity. No matter how 'strong' the 'alternative' appears on the surface, it remains the weakest link in an environment whose social and political history is too deep to be reduced to an Israeli decision.

And Gaza, with its history and collective memory, is not a field where a ready-made leader can be dropped and applause from the people awaited. Israel, despite all its tools, keeps repeating the same mistake: attempting to create leadership, instead of acknowledging a people fighting for freedom and self-determination.