Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, was elected to head its political bureau, essentially becoming the leader of the entire organization, replacing Ismail Haniyeh who was assassinated in Tehran last week. His election was completely unexpected, and his name did not come up in the list of names and speculations for Haniyeh’s replacement. His election testifies to his status and influence in the organization and the position of the Gaza Strip as Hamas’s center of gravity.
It’s not clear how the selection process was carried out and whether the choice made by the Shura Council, according to Hamas’s method, and if so how and where, but the selection is official and has been officially announced by the organization. Beyond that, it’s not entirely clear how Sinwar will manage the organization when he is in hiding and constantly on the run from the IDF forces who are following him. At the same time, his appointment as the organization’s leader, alongside his role as the head of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, makes him the mover and shaker, the main and perhaps the exclusive source of authority in the organization regarding negotiations on the hostages. His influence in this matter was also prominent before, and he tended to underestimate Ismail Haniyeh, but now that Sinwar won’t face any obstacles or disruptions, and if the rumors or assessments regarding the hard line that Haniyeh demonstrated are indeed true—now that the obstacle is gone—it can be assumed that Sinwar could promote a deal more easily.
Sinwar’s election to the position can be interpreted as an expression of recognition and appreciation for the centrality of the Gaza Strip, for leading the armed resistance, and the heavy price it has paid. At the same time, the choice of Sinwar is also an expression of his status and an important message from Hamas’s perspective to the Palestinians, Israel, and everyone else regarding its resilience and functional continuity.
Assuming that Sinwar will seek to establish his position as the leader of the organization and remove any obstacles or candidates in preparation for the elections to Hamas’s leadership expected to take place in 2025, it is likely that he will want to conclude a deal and end the war with guarantees for his personal security. This would allow him to assume the position of leading Hamas with vigor. Therefore, we may have an opportunity to end the war in the Gaza Strip with a hostage deal that is more reasonable from Israel’s perspective. There is even a possibility that Sinwar could leave Gaza, which he can present not as an escape but rather as an essential need to fulfill his responsibility and commitment as the leader of Hamas, which he cannot do from within the Gaza Strip. If the Egyptians have contributed to this move behind the scenes thanks to their proximity to Sinwar and his preference for them over the Qataris, it’s possible that Egypt could lead to the realization of this scenario.
Sinwar’s election, however, did not necessarily put an end to the known rivalries within the organization between the supporters of Qatar (Khaled Mashal) and the supporters of Egypt (Sinwar), as well as between the leadership of Gaza and the West Bank, and between the individuals themselves. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that this election has solidified Sinwar’s seniority, leadership, and authority. The result also testifies to Sinwar’s determination and his political and leadership skills, elevating his status and that of the organization well beyond the organization itself. This move also positions Sinwar as a candidate for the Palestinian leadership, and it is likely that the challenge he presents to Abu Mazen, the leadership of Fatah, and the Palestinian Authority will even surpass that posed by Ismail Haniyeh.
And a final note—like many researchers and experts who have dealt with Hamas for years, I did not imagine this scenario of Sinwar being elected to this position. This serves as another testament to the limitations of our imagination as researchers and underscores the eternal element of surprise in any form, and as a necessary lesson in research modesty.
Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, was elected to head its political bureau, essentially becoming the leader of the entire organization, replacing Ismail Haniyeh who was assassinated in Tehran last week. His election was completely unexpected, and his name did not come up in the list of names and speculations for Haniyeh’s replacement. His election testifies to his status and influence in the organization and the position of the Gaza Strip as Hamas’s center of gravity.
It’s not clear how the selection process was carried out and whether the choice made by the Shura Council, according to Hamas’s method, and if so how and where, but the selection is official and has been officially announced by the organization. Beyond that, it’s not entirely clear how Sinwar will manage the organization when he is in hiding and constantly on the run from the IDF forces who are following him. At the same time, his appointment as the organization’s leader, alongside his role as the head of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, makes him the mover and shaker, the main and perhaps the exclusive source of authority in the organization regarding negotiations on the hostages. His influence in this matter was also prominent before, and he tended to underestimate Ismail Haniyeh, but now that Sinwar won’t face any obstacles or disruptions, and if the rumors or assessments regarding the hard line that Haniyeh demonstrated are indeed true—now that the obstacle is gone—it can be assumed that Sinwar could promote a deal more easily.
Sinwar’s election to the position can be interpreted as an expression of recognition and appreciation for the centrality of the Gaza Strip, for leading the armed resistance, and the heavy price it has paid. At the same time, the choice of Sinwar is also an expression of his status and an important message from Hamas’s perspective to the Palestinians, Israel, and everyone else regarding its resilience and functional continuity.
Assuming that Sinwar will seek to establish his position as the leader of the organization and remove any obstacles or candidates in preparation for the elections to Hamas’s leadership expected to take place in 2025, it is likely that he will want to conclude a deal and end the war with guarantees for his personal security. This would allow him to assume the position of leading Hamas with vigor. Therefore, we may have an opportunity to end the war in the Gaza Strip with a hostage deal that is more reasonable from Israel’s perspective. There is even a possibility that Sinwar could leave Gaza, which he can present not as an escape but rather as an essential need to fulfill his responsibility and commitment as the leader of Hamas, which he cannot do from within the Gaza Strip. If the Egyptians have contributed to this move behind the scenes thanks to their proximity to Sinwar and his preference for them over the Qataris, it’s possible that Egypt could lead to the realization of this scenario.
Sinwar’s election, however, did not necessarily put an end to the known rivalries within the organization between the supporters of Qatar (Khaled Mashal) and the supporters of Egypt (Sinwar), as well as between the leadership of Gaza and the West Bank, and between the individuals themselves. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that this election has solidified Sinwar’s seniority, leadership, and authority. The result also testifies to Sinwar’s determination and his political and leadership skills, elevating his status and that of the organization well beyond the organization itself. This move also positions Sinwar as a candidate for the Palestinian leadership, and it is likely that the challenge he presents to Abu Mazen, the leadership of Fatah, and the Palestinian Authority will even surpass that posed by Ismail Haniyeh.
And a final note—like many researchers and experts who have dealt with Hamas for years, I did not imagine this scenario of Sinwar being elected to this position. This serves as another testament to the limitations of our imagination as researchers and underscores the eternal element of surprise in any form, and as a necessary lesson in research modesty.