Three messages to the world from choosing Sinwar to succeed Haniyeh

The assassination of Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh in the Iranian capital Tehran on July 31 has raised a storm of questions about its potential repercussions on the course of the war in Gaza and the regional confrontation associated with it, the negotiations file, and the movement’s internal situation and its relations with the outside world. However, Hamas’s selection of its head in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, to succeed Ismail Haniyeh, provides a clear glimpse into how the movement will manage its war strategy from now on.

This choice, although it may seem surprising to many who expected a figure from the movement’s political wing to be chosen to assume this position for various reasons, appears above all as a natural result of Haniyeh’s assassination, the new direction the war has taken after the new Israeli escalation, and the increase in its regional risks.

The movement’s internal considerations as a major factor in this choice show the fact that Sinwar, who is seen as the architect of the October 7 attack, is still effectively leading the resistance on the ground, despite the many months that have passed since the war, as Israel, with all its high military, intelligence and espionage capabilities, is unable to reach him and assassinate him. It also shows the confidence that the movement, with its two wings: the political and military, has in Sinwar as a strong figure capable of managing Hamas both internally and externally in times of war.

His selection for this mission was also a need for the movement to demonstrate cohesion between its two wings: the military at home, and the political abroad; to dispel the allegations, which the Israelis sought to raise, about the existence of a division between its two wings: the military and the political, and about Sinwar’s isolation from the outside world, and about the existence of conflicts within the movement over Haniyeh’s succession. The selection of Sinwar carries within it three prominent messages from the Hamas movement.

A message of solidarity and defiance to Israel 

In addition to demonstrating internal cohesion at the level of the relationship between its two wings in Gaza and abroad, the selection of Sinwar sends a message of defiance to the occupation, stating that the movement is still strong and capable of producing new leadership to keep up with the challenges imposed by the new phase of the war after the assassination of Haniyeh.

If Israel is able to assassinate the head of the movement’s political bureau abroad in order to frustrate the resistance’s resolve in Gaza, and to demonstrate its military and intelligence capabilities to restore the concept of Israeli deterrence, which was cracked after the October 7 attack, then from now on it will have to confront Sinwar, not only as the architect of the Al-Aqsa flood or the leader of the resistance on the ground, but also as the political leader of Hamas.

A message of humiliation to Netanyahu 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu marketed the assassination of Haniyeh—even if he did not admit responsibility for it—as a demonstration of Israel’s ability to assassinate top leaders in Hamas’s political wing, such as Haniyeh and his deputy Saleh al-Arouri, in order to fulfill his promises to eliminate senior Hamas political and military leaders and compensate for his failure to achieve victory in the war.

By choosing Sinwar to succeed Haniyeh, the movement wanted to humiliate Netanyahu and exacerbate the internal embarrassment he faces as a result of the military and intelligence failure to reach and assassinate Sinwar, whom Israel holds primarily responsible for carrying out the October 7 attack. After this choice, Netanyahu will face great embarrassment in continuing to market the assassination of Haniyeh, and claiming the assassination of the commander-in-chief of the Qassam Brigades, Muhammad Deif, and his deputy, Marwan Issa, as a success in achieving the goals of the war.

Netanyahu has generally lost much of his standing at home in this war, and is widely seen as primarily responsible for Israel’s strategic predicament. It is inconceivable that the assassinations of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders will help him restore his pre-war leadership and avoid the heavy political price he will eventually have to pay.

Power is the word in negotiations 

The late Ismail Haniyeh was seen as a driving force within Hamas’s political wing for a deal to end the war. It is self-evident that his assassination was designed in part to undermine the chances of such a deal. The consensus among Hamas, many Israelis who want the captives returned, and the United States is that Netanyahu alone is blocking an agreement to end the war.

In fact, the assassination of Haniyeh clearly demonstrated the deception practiced by Netanyahu in the negotiations in order to evade the deal and prolong the war for as long as possible. The selection of Sinwar as Haniyeh’s successor sends three messages from Hamas regarding the negotiations file. The first is that it is no longer prepared to proceed with these negotiations as long as Netanyahu continues to deceive the world in them. The second is that the movement’s first and last word in the negotiations is determined by the resistance on the ground. The third is that the mediators will have to deal from now on with Sinwar to determine the frameworks of any possible deal in the future.

Hamas’s main priority, ending Israel’s carnage in the Gaza Strip and reaching a deal that preserves the strategic gains made by the Palestinian cause after October 7, will remain in place regardless of the potential implications of Sinwar’s selection as the leader of its political bureau. Sinwar’s selection for the position is designed to maximize the chances of achieving such an outcome.