Yahya Sinwar, Pemimpin Hamas (AFP)
STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT. Hamas’ leader in the Gaza Strip, Yahya Sinwar, was selected last week as the organization’s overall leader (head of the group’s ruling Political Bureau), succeeding Ismail Haniyeh, who was slain by an Israeli operation in Tehran on July 31. Sinwar’s selection was unexpected, in large part because other members of the Political Bureau, such as Khaled Meshaal, were considered more senior and had far more experience and ties to key Arab leaders.
Yet, Yahya Sinwar’s appointment is a significant indication of the group’s evolving strategy and internal power dynamics. It can be seen as a defiant response to the assassination of Haniyeh. His elevation not only underscores the group’s consolidation of power but also signals a potential shift toward more extreme measures. As the leader of both the political and military wings in Gaza, Sinwar has long wielded considerable influence over the movement’s strategic direction. His leadership reinforces the group’s commitment to its overarching goal of compelling Israel to acknowledge the establishment of a Palestinian state while asserting dominance over the broader Palestinian national movement. It has been widely assessed that Sinwar and his top associates in the Qassam Brigades (Hamas military wing) orchestrated the October 7 attack on Israel without the approval, or perhaps even the knowledge, of senior Political Bureau leaders, including Haniyeh. Sinwar has been able to accept or reject proposals for an end to the Gaza conflict and the release of remaining Israeli hostages – even those considered acceptable to the Hamas leaders who are abroad.
The implications of the Sinwar selection as the head of Hamas and a potential end to the Gaza war are pivotal. Sinwar reportedly conceived the October 7 attack on Israel as a dramatic step toward pressuring Israel to accept the formation of a Palestinian state and for elevating the Palestinian issue on the global agenda. By all accounts, he is willing to accept continuing significant losses among his forces in Gaza and among Palestinian civilians in the Strip to pressure Israel to end the war and compel the global community to recognize a state of Palestine. Other Hamas leaders who were not selected for the top post are said to be eager to settle the Gaza conflict and advance Hamas goals with the support of moderate Arab states.
In the recent months of mediation by U.S., Qatari, and Egyptian officials, Sinwar reportedly has blocked agreement on any deal that does not require Israel to end all military operations in the Gaza Strip permanently. Sinwar and his top associates seem to believe that conceding to ongoing Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operations in Gaza could jeopardize their ultimate objectives. Despite the extensive destruction in Gaza and the significant degradation of Hamas’ operational capabilities, including damage to the sophisticated tunnel networks, Sinwar reportedly remains focused on leveraging Hamas’ regional popularity to assert dominance over the Palestinian national movement.
Sinwar’s elevation likely comes as a disappointment to moderate Arab states, including Egypt, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, as well as others who have worked for many years to moderate Hamas’ ideology and goals and integrate it into the Sunni Arab world. The October 7 attack seemed to confirm that moderate Arab leaders had failed to persuade Hamas to agree to the ongoing normalization efforts with Israel, alongside Palestinian leaders in the West Bank. The assault firmly positioned Hamas and Sinwar within the sphere of Iran and its Axis of Resistance, whose “unity of fronts” strategy aims to exert military pressure on Israel until it meets Palestinian demands. While Iran’s primary goal is to advance its own national interests, it has strategically leveraged its support for the Palestinian cause to further its broader regional agenda. Although there is no evidence that Iranian leaders influenced the decision of Hamas’ broad Shura Council (consultative assembly of leaders) to choose Sinwar, his elevation signals that Hamas will remain aligned with Iran and its Axis as long as Sinwar is in power in the group.
At the same time, Israel, with the cooperation of Egypt, appears to have sealed off the previous smuggling routes along the Egypt-Gaza border that Hamas had used to bring in Iranian and other weapons and technology. This development has significantly hindered Iran’s ability to provide material support to the group. Iran’s ability to provide material aid to the group is, therefore, limited. The large-scale IDF destruction of Hamas’ organized military infrastructure in Gaza renders the group largely unable to join any concerted Iran and Axis military action against Israel, for example, as retaliation for the Haniyeh assassination in Tehran.
As a practical matter of concern to global officials, Sinwar’s accession to leadership complicates the mediation efforts to resolve the Gaza conflict as Political Bureau leaders, Haniyeh, and his top associates were able to travel around the region and engage with Arab leaders, including those heading the key mediating states, Qatar and Egypt. Haniyeh and other leaders could communicate with Sinwar in discussions on various ceasefire and hostage release proposals, although haltingly. In the current circumstance, Sinwar is unable to travel outside Gaza, and even within Gaza, he is said to be largely confined to the remaining tunnel system to avoid being captured or killed by the IDF. Sinwar cannot perform any open leadership or negotiating duties within or outside Gaza.
Sinwar’s leadership appointment also answers the question of whether Hamas and the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority, dominated by the Fatah faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), will be able to reconcile. One week before Haniyeh’s death, a Political Bureau delegation led by Musa Abu Marzuq held talks with Fatah leaders in Beijing to reconcile their rift. For years, Arab leaders have sought to reconcile Hamas with Fatah to jointly negotiate with Israel on an overall settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Beijing’s mediation effort was the latest attempt, coming after years of failed Hamas-Fatah talks and agreements that were not implemented or quickly unraveled. Haniyeh, at one time, served as prime minister of the PA – a role neither the PA nor Israel would allow Sinwar to play. Regional leaders and global experts almost unanimously view Sinwar’s accession as rendering the broad Palestinian national movement further divided and unable to advance Palestinian aspirations through negotiations.
For Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition government, the selection of Sinwar serves its argument that the war against Hamas in Gaza needs to be prosecuted until Hamas’ political and military infrastructure is eliminated. Netanyahu’s government argues the Sinwar elevation demonstrates the movement does not want a negotiated settlement of the war and would never enter into productive negotiations with Israel on a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
The Netanyahu government undoubtedly views its successful targeting of figures like Haniyeh, Qassam Brigades chief Mohammad Deif, Hamas deputy leader Saleh al-Arouri, and others as a validation of its strategy, reinforcing the decision to continue pursuing the elimination of the group’s top leadership. Despite this approach, history has shown that the assassination of Hamas leaders over the decades has often only bolstered the group’s popularity, rather than diminishing it. In a clear signal of its determination to persist, Israel recently killed Samer al-Haj, the head of security for Hamas in Lebanon. Netanyahu has firmly rejected any ceasefire agreement that would prevent Israel from deploying the IDF in Gaza to capture or kill Hamas leaders and hinder the group’s ability to regroup militarily and politically.
However, U.S., other Western, and Arab leaders see Israel’s targeted assassinations as increasing the potential for regional war and enabling Iran and its partners, particularly Lebanese Hezbollah, to justify retaliation and regionwide escalation. U.S. officials continue to press the Netanyahu government to modify its proposals for a ceasefire and hostage release – the Sinwar appointment notwithstanding. On Thursday, President Biden, the Amir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, and the President of Egypt Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, issued a joint statement calling on Israel and Hamas to take part in a final round of negotiations on August 15 to finalize a Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal. Israel has agreed to re-engage in negotiations next week despite reports of internal divisions between Netanyahu and his negotiation team regarding the framework for the upcoming discussions. In contrast, Hamas has stated that it remains committed to the framework outlined in Biden’s proposal, which all parties agreed upon on July 2nd, and sees no reason why negotiations should pick up from a different starting point once all parties do reengage. Still, the Sinwar selection causes many global experts to set their expectations for the next set of ceasefire talks low.
