NOW that the soldiers have just about gone — along with the settlers — the 38-year Israeli occupation of Gaza has officially ended. Apart from a few hundred Egyptian soldiers who will patrol the Rafah border in order to prevent arms smuggling, on the ground, at least, Palestinians will have full control over Gaza. The question is, however, in which Palestinian hands the stronger authority will rest — those of the Palestinian Authority or the activist groups led primarily by Hamas?

President Mahmoud Abbas is faced with a growing challenge from Hamas as the PA and the activists vie for influence in Gaza. While the PA is preparing to take control of the land, Hamas has already taken credit for forcing the Israelis to leave. Hamas has maintained from the beginning that the Israeli decision to withdraw from Gaza was taken as a result of pressure brought about by its sustained armed resistance. The assumption may well be correct. Israel did not evacuate Gaza out of good will; Tel Aviv must have realized it would never be able to crush the Palestinians in Gaza and its attempts had become too expensive as well as a perpetual source of fear for its soldiers and settlers. The pullout leaves a power vacuum in the new Gaza which needs filling.

So far the PA is in charge and will probably remain so but Hamas is riding a wave of popular support. It has won key local elections in the West Bank and Gaza and seems set to make a good showing in January’s legislative elections. In all likelihood the face of Palestinian politics after the elections will be radically altered though by how much is still unclear. Palestinian opinion polls underline the uncertainty. While 72 percent of Palestinians view the pullout as a victory for armed resistance, about 67 percent oppose the continuation of armed attacks against Israelis from Gaza. Interestingly, some 60 percent of those polled said they opposed the collection of arms from armed groups.

While some think that Palestinians should cease attacking Israel from Gaza, Hamas says the struggle should continue. Such a stand puts the parties in a quandary. The Israeli withdrawal puts Israeli and US pressure on the PA to reciprocate by a crackdown on such groups as Hamas. Of course, the PA will not trigger a civil war just to appease Tel Aviv and Washington. But a collision course with Hamas is probably inevitable.

Hamas clearly wants to strengthen its hold on Palestinian society. It is in this context that it recently turned down a call by Abbas to join a Palestinian national unity government and has also defied Abbas’ call to disarm. One major agreement has been an adherence, more or less, to a cease-fire by Hamas. The pledge is up for renewal at the beginning of 2006.

The PA succeeded in containing any eruption after Yasser Arafat’s death last November when it unanimously chose Abbas as its sole candidate. But Abbas’ subsequent election as president in January was more of a compromise rather than an expression of true unity between the government and activist groups. That kind of relationship cannot continue on unsteady ground.