Negotiations for a ceasefire and a deal to release the hostages stalled partly because Sinwar held out for a permanent agreement allowing Hamas to retain power in a postwar Gaza. His maximalist stance was incompatible with that of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, who sought only a temporary truce that would allow Israel to return to battle within weeks to prevent Hamas’ long-term survival.
After Sinwar’s death, Hamas’ remaining leadership, demoralised and afraid, might agree to make compromises that Sinwar could not, analysts said.
In Israel, Netanyahu could now make the argument that Hamas has been defeated without the need for further war.
“If Netanyahu has a victory picture under his belt, he can be a bit more forthcoming because he is in a much more prestigious position,” said Itamar Rabinovich, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington. “The question is,” Rabinovich added, “does Netanyahu rise to the occasion, or does he not?”
Still, any change may not be immediate. Hamas is a disciplined organisation that has survived the deaths of many previous leaders, and its core beliefs remain the same regardless of who is in charge. And Netanyahu must still weigh a renewed push for a hostage deal against the priorities of his allies in Government, who want him to continue the war.
Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right minister who has previously threatened to resign from Government if the war ends prematurely, said in a statement: “It is time to increase the military pressure and step on the neck of the terrorist organisation, until its complete defeat.”
In response, Netanyahu took an ambiguous stance, releasing competing statements that suggested he was weighing both options. After speaking with President Joe Biden, the Prime Minister’s office released a statement that acknowledged “an opportunity to advance the release of the hostages”.
But in an earlier video statement, Netanyahu appeared to side with his coalition partners, warning Israelis of tough challenges ahead and pledging to continue to pursue Hamas’ remaining leadership.
“Today evil suffered a severe blow, but the task before us is not yet complete,” Netanyahu said. “Together we shall fight,” he added, “and, with God’s help, together we shall prevail”.
The route that Hamas might take in the wake of Sinwar’s death is similarly ambiguous, analysts said.
Fuad Khuffash, a Palestinian analyst close to Hamas, said that Sinwar’s death would deal the group a crushing blow but would not necessarily change its main negotiating positions.
Hamas is “a group built on individuals. If you lose someone of Sinwar’s stature, it’s not always easy to find someone quickly with the same strength,” said Khuffash. But, he added, “Hamas will continue according to the same principles – if they don’t stiffen their position. Whoever replaces this leader will continue his ideological line”.
For example, Hamas’ remaining leadership is still unlikely to withdraw its demand for a permanent truce or to accept permanent Israeli occupation of parts of Gaza, according to Ibrahim Dalalsha, director of the Horizon Center, a political research group in Ramallah, West Bank.
But Dalalsha said Hamas’ new leadership might be more willing than Sinwar to hand over power to a technocratic Palestinian government, to ensure the group can survive at least in some form in Gaza. It could also show more flexibility in the negotiations over the hostages, perhaps agreeing to exchange more hostages for fewer Palestinian prisoners.
And it might also tolerate a temporary Israeli presence in Gaza as long as Israel nominally promised to withdraw permanently in the future, Dalalsha said.
“You could find a weakened, more pragmatic leadership in Hamas that would make some tactical compromises, though not on the strategic issues,” Dalalsha said.
“They won’t say: ‘Yes, we’ll do whatever you want, Mr. Netanyahu,’” Dalalsha said. “But for the sake of their own physical survival, they may make more compromises than the man who initiated the whole war.”
But whatever the response from Hamas and Netanyahu, their actions in Gaza will still leave the broader battle between Israel and Hamas’ regional allies unresolved.
Ending the war in Gaza would not immediately contain Israel’s war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, where an Israeli ground invasion is ongoing, or its conflict with Iran.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Written by: Patrick Kingsley
Photographs by: Samar Abu Elouf
©2024 THE NEW YORK TIMES
