Hamas after Sinwar.. Is it time for major transformations?

Since the assassination of Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, the movement has entered a historic turning point that will determine its future for years to come, as Sinwar is considered one of its most steadfast and influential leaders. Sinwar was not only a military leader, but also a pivotal figure in negotiation and peace decisions, and the source of authority within the movement in Gaza.

Sinwar had an exceptional ability to balance defiance and confrontation with Israel and open the door to negotiations when necessary, making him a unique figure in the history of Hamas. He is also considered the leader who shaped the history of the Gaza Strip, as his word was the final word in the movement’s military and political decisions, which enhanced the movement’s reputation among Palestinians as a symbol of defiance and resistance against Israel. With his passing, the question remains about Hamas’s remaining options, especially after the massive destruction that befell the Gaza Strip.

Although Sinwar was a strong leader, his decision to escalate on October 7 has left the Gaza Strip in a difficult position; some Gazans see him as responsible for giving Israel a pretext to destroy the Strip, while others see him as a hero who defended their cause. However, it cannot be ignored that Sinwar’s assassination represents a critical turning point in the movement’s and the Gaza Strip’s trajectory.

Recent polls in the Gaza Strip have indicated a decline in favor of Hamas continuing to control the area after the war ends, and an increase in favor of Palestinian Authority control. Despite all this, Hamas remains the most popular movement among all Palestinian factions. The results also indicate a significant increase in support for the two-state solution, accompanied by a decline in favor of armed action and an increase in favor of negotiations as an effective means of ending the occupation.

What has happened since October 7 and the assassination of Sinwar has put Hamas in an unprecedented predicament, as leaders who can make radical decisions like those Sinwar made in October may be few in the movement’s ranks, which finds itself forced to search for a new leadership capable of making strategic decisions in light of the deteriorating conditions in Gaza.

Although Hamas built its legitimacy and power in the Strip, Gaza is now a thing of the past; the total destruction poses unprecedented challenges to the movement, which will not be the same as it was before October 7. However, it remains to be seen whether the movement will be able to regroup, or whether its power and influence will decline.

In comparison with global movements, when Osama bin Laden, the founder of Al-Qaeda, was assassinated in 2011, his assassination was a moral and symbolic blow to the organization. Although Al-Qaeda had prepared for his succession, and Ayman al-Zawahiri took over the leadership, the impact on the effectiveness of operations was clear, as Al-Qaeda’s central ability to plan major operations weakened, and later led to a split within the organization and the widespread spread of branches in regions such as Yemen, North Africa, Syria, and others, in addition to the emergence of new organizations that adopted a similar approach but with different strategies and local leadership, which reduced Al-Qaeda’s centrality and increased the fragmentation of jihadist groups.

In the Palestinian context, the question remains: Is Hamas finished? While some may see Sinwar’s assassination as the end of the movement in the Gaza Strip, this is not guaranteed. Hamas may face its most difficult phases, but throughout its history it has shown an ability to adapt to changing circumstances. The next scenario may be that Hamas becomes more of a political force than a military one, or the movement may witness internal divisions that weaken it in an unprecedented way. With the martyrdom of a leader of Sinwar’s stature, Hamas may move towards strengthening the collective leadership within the movement to enhance participation in decision-making between the various wings - military and political - which will allow the movement to maintain its continuity despite the absence of a central leadership.

This move could help reduce internal divisions and enhance organizational stability. Hamas has a history of adopting collective leadership in times of crisis, which could be one of its main options.

Ultimately, Sinwar’s assassination represents a major turning point in Hamas’s history, and the movement’s remaining options will depend on its ability to adapt to this loss and the new circumstances imposed by the war on Gaza.

In light of what is happening on the ground, Hamas finds itself at a crossroads; options that may seem military to the world are for Hamas a necessity to defend the rights of the Palestinian people who are suffering from the woes and consequences of what Israel is doing in the Palestinian territories. However, questions arise about whether these options will bring an end to the conflict or increase the suffering of the innocent.

On the regional level, Hamas may seek to strengthen its relations with Iran and Hezbollah, which will provide it with material and military support. Iran and Hezbollah may find in the martyrdom of Sinwar an opportunity to expand their influence in the Palestinian conflict, which is the growing choice within Hamas to move towards the Iranian axis, which puts it in a complex position within the Arab political scene.

In light of international and regional pressure, Hamas may find itself forced to adopt the option of appeasement and diplomacy, especially since there are indications that the movement may seek to negotiate with international and regional mediators to ensure a long-term truce with Israel.

This option may be an attempt to ease military pressure and improve humanitarian conditions in Gaza, but it may provoke internal criticism from hardliners within the movement.

The deep wounds left by the war in Gaza cannot be healed by appointing a new leader to replace Sinwar alone. The people of Gaza are facing immense humanitarian suffering and are in dire need of an end to the conflict and a political solution. Perhaps the only way for Hamas to maintain its presence and influence in the Palestinian arena requires adopting a more comprehensive political vision, beginning with joining the Palestine Liberation Organization and working within a unified national framework.

Such a step could represent the beginning of achieving national aspirations and ending the political division that has drained the Palestinian cause for years, in order to find a political solution that guarantees a decent life for the people of Gaza, alleviates the burden of daily suffering and opens up horizons for a better future.