Sinwar’s Death Presents a New Challenge to Israel and Hamas

The death of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar is significant only if Netanyahu and Hamas use it to advance a ceasefire agreement and release the Israeli hostages while providing desperately needed supplies of food, fuel and medicine to the devastated Palestinians.

This should be followed by a long-term ceasefire, during which an overall framework should be developed that would lead to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a process of reconciliation over several years, culminating in the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Otherwise, if neither seizes the opportunity, Sinwar’s assassination will be just another slaying of a Hamas or Hezbollah leader who is often replaced by even more radical leaders.

Unattainable goals

Hamas’ design to destroy Israel has proven to be almost suicidal, given the unprecedented massive destruction and death that Israel has inflicted on Gaza.

Conversely, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s wish to attain a “total victory” over Hamas has proven to be an illusionary goal that can never materialize due to the very nature of Hamas’ ideology, structure and enduring resistance.

However, although both sides still hold the same position, they know that their ultimate objective of mutual destruction is untenable. The question is, where will they go from here?

It is well known that Netanyahu does not want to end the war, not because he believes he can win it, but because of personal calculations, which will prove disastrous if he does not change course.

Anyone who studied Hamas’ doctrine would attest that irrespective of the heavy losses and ruin they have sustained, they will survive as a movement.

Hamas will continue to terrorize the Israelis from many fronts — especially from the West Bank where they have a strong presence, even if they no longer govern Gaza — unless Israel recognizes the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, for which all Palestinians aspire.

Netanyahu’s self-centered motives

For Netanyahu and his extremist government, however, the Palestinian demand is simply a non-starter. Instead of seeking a ceasefire, Netanyahu called on Hamas to lay down its weapons and surrender, fully expecting that Hamas would never capitulate.

This is precisely what Netanyahu is counting on to justify the continuation of the war and, more than anything else, to stay in power. He is fearful that if he were to agree on a ceasefire, his government would collapse, as several ministers threatened to resign if he did.

Moreover, once he is out of power, he will face a commission of inquiry about the October 7 attack, in addition to the three pending criminal charges against him that can send him to jail if he is convicted.

The question is, will Netanyahu put, for once, his country’s interests before his own by reaching a ceasefire as a first step toward ending the war in Gaza, winding down the hostilities with Hezbollah and preventing further escalation of the hostilities with Iran?

Fearing further devastation

Notwithstanding their belligerent statements against Israel and their call for revenge for the killings of Sinwar and Nasrallah, Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s new leaders want to end the conflict, fearing further devastation.

Iran, in particular, which is now bracing for a major retaliatory Israeli attack, is deeply concerned that the widespread regional violence could lead to a full-fledged regional war that inadvertently forces the United States to join the fray on Israel’s side, which Iran wants badly to avoid.

An opportunity to reshape Gaza

In the wake of Sinwar’s death, a new opportunity presents itself to reshape the governance in Gaza by allowing the Palestinian Authority (PA) under new leadership to take control.

The Israeli forces should remain in Gaza to maintain security for 12-18 months, during which the PA will organize itself administratively with the support of the UN and other countries’ agencies.

Simultaneously, internal Palestinian security forces will be recruited, trained and equipped by several aligned and non-aligned powers under UN peacekeeping supervision.

Once this force is fully trained and ready, it will gradually take over security. Israel, too, would correspondingly withdraw its troops in stages — but continue to collaborate on all security matters to allay its concerns and ensure sustainability.

Instead of demanding Hamas’ surrender, which is entirely a non-starter, Israel should make it clear that it will not oppose any Palestinian organization, including Hamas, which is willing to recognize Israel’s right to exist to join the PA in any future government in Gaza and the West Bank.

An olive branch from a position of strength

Some would say that this is nothing short of rewarding Hamas for its attack against Israel. They are wrong. Israel has nearly decimated Hamas’ military capabilities and decapitated its leaders.

It can now make such a gesture from a position of strength without humiliating the Palestinians because, in the final analysis, Israel must acknowledge Palestinian rights without compromising its security, but rather enhancing it.

I want to emphasize that regardless of how much weaker and devastated Hamas is, their October attack and their fighting ability in the face of Israel’s military might have made them even more popular among the Palestinians — especially in the West Bank (a July survey found 41% of West Bankers support Hamas, up from 12% last September).

The dramatic increase in violence in the West Bank over the past year is largely attributed to Hamas’ terrorism. No Palestinian Authority can govern Gaza by ignoring Hamas, which can still sabotage with little effort any new arrangement with the PA if they are not an integral part of it.

Netanyahu likely to double down

Others would argue that this is quite a stretch that Netanyahu will never agree to. Moreover, he is also shackled by ministers driven by messianic illusions advocating for the reoccupation of Gaza, establishing military rule and even building new settlements.

Furthermore, Netanyahu has in the past refused to negotiate with any Palestinian unity governments that included Hamas. I agree that this is a tall order, but then another opportunity will be missed, and the sacrifices that Israel made will all be in vain.

The vicious cycle of violence will continue, claiming more lives, and nothing will fundamentally change until the Israelis wake up to the reality of the Palestinians’ existence and their rights.

Most Israelis who bought into Netanyahu’s false narrative claiming that the Palestinians do not want peace but seek to destroy Israel must remember that Palestinians’ violent resistance against Israel is not an end in and of itself. It is a struggle to end the occupation and win self-determination.

Why then not challenge the Palestinians to commence peace talks without any preconditions and continue to negotiate until an agreement is reached with a most comprehensive security collaboration?

No end in sight without negotiation

If the Israelis have learned anything from the past 57 years of occupation, it is that the Palestinians will never abdicate their right to self-determination, and the extremists among them will continue to resist Israel by any means at their disposal until they realize their national aspiration — even if it takes another 100 years.

Every Israeli must remember that even the most extremist violent organizations change course when faced with new realities, including military pressure, public exhaustion, lack of material and political support and the futility of continuing armed struggle. Hamas is not an exception.

Notwithstanding their religiously-based doctrine, the war in Gaza and the massive death and destruction that ensued have taught Hamas a bitter lesson they do not want ever to experience again.

However, they need to show some progress toward Palestinian self-determination for their unprecedented sacrifices and not be humiliated by laying down their arms and surrendering, as their humiliation reflects on all Palestinians — regardless of their political leanings.

Many cogent examples demonstrate that even the most extremist organizations came to recognize that the continuation of their conflicts became futile and self-destructive, and they were forced to change course.

Irish Republican Army (IRA)

The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) was the largest and most notable republican paramilitary force during the Troubles. After decades of violent conflict and a military and political stalemate, it agreed to a ceasefire in 1997.

It played a crucial role in the peace process, leading to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. The IRA officially declared its war against the British government over in 2005, and Sinn Féin, the political party heavily linked with it, is now the largest political party in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)

FARC, a Marxist-Leninist guerrilla group, waged a violent insurgency in Colombia for over 50 years, promoting agrarianism and anti-imperialism.

However, facing military setbacks and changing political realities, the group entered into peace negotiations with the Colombian government and eventually signed a peace agreement in 2016 — transforming into a legal political party that debuted the following year.

Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)

The MILF, an Islamist separatist group in the Philippines, fought for decades to establish an independent Islamic state in the southern Philippines and had decades of various negotiations with the government over autonomy without any lasting agreement.

However, after these years of negotiations, the group signed a comprehensive peace agreement with the Philippine government in 2014 and, in return, the government granted expanded autonomy to Muslims in the south in 2018.

Shining examples

These examples demonstrate that even long-standing extremist organizations can eventually choose to abandon violence and pursue their objectives through peaceful means when faced with no other choice.

The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) itself is yet another example. In 1993, the PLO and the Israeli government reached an agreement on mutual recognition (the Oslo Accords), and Chairman Arafat renounced the use of violence to achieve its goals.

Empathy for Palestinians, no tears shed for Hamas

There is not a single Arab state that sheds a single tear for the demise of Sinwar or Haniyeh and, for that matter, for the near-decimation of Hamas’ military capabilities.

They have witnessed, however, the horrific death of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians in Gaza and the massive destruction that laid much of Gaza in ruin. They can no longer ignore the Palestinian plight nor the outcry of their publics in support of the Palestinians.

Thus, no Arab state, especially Saudi Arabia, would dare normalize relations with Israel unless Israel agrees on a binding path that would lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Israel should take a special note of the fact that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are negotiating with Iran (Israel’s sworn enemy) to normalize relations to avert future Iranian threats — instead of seeking an alliance with Israel to deny Iran’s aspiration for regional hegemony.

Conclusion

I have no illusion that Netanyahu and his government would adopt such an “unconventional” approach to seek a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with Hamas factored in. This simply will not happen under Netanyahu’s watch.

It is time for the Israelis to rid themselves of a warmonger who wants to live by the sword and drag Israel with him to the abyss.

The whole Arab world still is ready to embrace Israel, provided that Israel embraces the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.

The long and painful history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, culminating with the Gaza war, precludes any other alternative for as long as it takes.