Gaza After Sinwar
Has the calculus of either side changed?
Experts continue to weigh in on the possibilities created by this week’s serendipitous killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.
My friend Matt Duss, a longtime Middle East expert and former foreign policy advisor to Senator Bernie Sanders, took to the NYT to argue that “Yahya Sinwar’s Death Can End This War.” Alas, the conditions he sets for doing so do not make me hopeful.
While Mr. Sinwar was far from alone in resisting an agreement — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has repeatedly and openly undermined cease-fire efforts for months — his death can and must create new momentum to end this catastrophic and steadily widening war.
[…]
A majority of Hamas’s senior leadership now resides outside of Gaza, mostly in Doha, Qatar, making it potentially easier to strike a deal. But for such a deal to be durable, it would need to really end the war, not simply start a new chapter of an Israeli military presence in Gaza.
If Mr. Sinwar truly was the obstacle to a cease-fire agreement that U.S. officials — including President Biden — have claimed, that obstacle is now gone. The United States and its partners have a window to halt the downward spiral to regional conflagration. The Biden administration must press the Netanyahu government and remaining Hamas officials to end the war in Gaza, return hostages to their families, surge humanitarian aid into the territory and urgently take other steps to ensure that Gazans have adequate shelter, supplies and security as winter approaches.
All of that will require fresh diplomatic pressure on both sides, including a willingness for the Biden administration to withhold offensive arms to Israel if it does not cooperate. The United States should simultaneously renew its abandoned push for an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon that allows civilians to safely return to their homes on both sides of the border. In furtherance of those aims, the Biden administration should also urge Israel to refrain from potentially escalatory strikes on Iran.
While this would indeed be a peaceful resolution, there’s simply no way Netanyahu will stop pressing his advantage in Lebanon or forego retaliating for Iran’s missile strikes on Israel. And, while the Biden administration has threatened to cut off arms to Israel, they’re surely not going to do so before next month’s election.
Atlantic staff writer Shane Harris, a longtime national security reporter, argues, “Two People Will Decide What Comes of Sinwar’s Death.”
In what turned out to be the last few months of Yahya Sinwar’s life, U.S. and Israeli officials worried that the architect of the October 7 attacks might never free the hostages they believed he had hidden in the twisting tunnels of Gaza. Sinwar had essentially abandoned negotiations over a durable cease-fire and the accompanying release of the 100-plus captives, as well as fresh aid for Palestinians and the chance to rebuild their obliterated territory with international help. American and Israeli intelligence officials, who had no direct contact with Sinwar and communicated via intermediaries, told me they weren’t sure if they were dealing with a rational actor ready to end his people’s suffering or a fanatic with a death wish.
Sinwar’s chance encounter on Wednesday with an Israeli military patrol, whose soldiers did not immediately realize that they had killed their country’s most wanted man, has inspired a cautious optimism. These are early days, but the “chief impediment” to freeing the hostages and bringing some peace to Gaza is gone, one U.S. official told me. Whether any of this happens hinges on the decisions of two men: Sinwar’s yet unnamed replacement and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
[…]
Since October 7, Israeli society has debated a question of priorities: defeating Hamas and bringing the hostages home. Putting aside how one defines defeat, Netanyahu has always set the goals in that order. Much of Israeli society, and probably most of the hostages’ families, thinks they should be reversed.
That fundamental tension that has divided the country will not be resolved by Sinwar’s elimination. But his death, more than any other event in the course of the war, may force Netanyahu to put the hostages first. Certainly that is the Biden administration’s hope—and one that the families fervently share.
Tragic though the plight of the hostages is, it would be absurd for their release to be the chief strategic aim of the Israeli government. Destroying Hamas may be a chimeric goal but it’s the only one that assures the safety of Israel’s citizens. A reconstituted Hamas would simply take more hostages any time it feels like it.
Also at The Atlantic, pro-Palestinian activist Hussein Ibish contends, “Sinwar’s Death Changes Nothing.”
The killing on Thursday of the Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, the principal architect of the October 7 attack on southern Israel, offers a golden opportunity for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to declare victory and begin pulling troops out of Gaza. But that is not going to happen. Most likely, nothing will change, because neither Netanyahu nor Hamas wants it to.
Netanyahu’s calculation is no mystery. Should he leave political office, he faces a criminal-corruption trial and a probable inquiry into the security meltdown on October 7. He has apparently concluded that the best way to stay out of prison is to stay in power, and the best way to stay in power is to keep the war going—specifically, the war in Gaza. The battle against Hezbollah in Lebanon is too volatile, and involves too many other actors, including the United States, Iran, and Gulf Arab countries, for Israel to keep control of its trajectory. For this reason, Lebanon is much less useful than Gaza as a domestic political tool.
[…]
Hamas, for its part, seems to think it can hold out in the short term, and gain in the long term. An insurgency requires little sophistication by way of organizational structure or weaponry—only automatic rifles, crude IEDs, and fighters who are prepared to die. Years, possibly a decade or longer, of battles against Israeli occupation forces for control of Palestinian land in Gaza are intended to elevate the Hamas Islamists over the secular-nationalist Fatah party as the nation’s bloodied standard-bearer. Hamas leaders may well see no reason to abandon this path to political power just because Sinwar is dead.
This has been my position as well. Wars end when one or both sides conclude they can not enhance their position by further fighting. It’s not at all clear that Sinwar’s death creates that condition.
While I have no doubt that his political career is a significant factor in Netanyahu’s decisionmaking, I do not believe it’s the driving factor in the war policy. By all indications, all of the major Israeli parties want to continue the war. Given that they think they’re winning, it’s hard to blame them.
I question whether it is possible to degrade Hamas to the point that it literally does not exist and cannot reconstitute itself. I further would argue that Israel’s devastation of Gaza has created fertile grounds for the next Hamas event this one is destroyed.
In other words, I do not think that there is an outcomes wherein Israel will have utterly stopped the possibility of further terrorism. As such, there has to be a point wherein this fight stops and you try to say whatever remaining hostages there are. Better to say them from the hell they are in because no matter what Israel does, it cannot guarantee a perfect future.
Additionally, the suffering of Gazans has got to be taken into the calculus at some point.
@Steven L. Taylor:
No–at least not the idea or name of “Hamas.” We need to look no further than the recent resurgence in Nazism and anti-anti-Nazism “just asking questions folks.” That’s before we get to examples like the “death” and reinventions of the Islamic State groups.
It would help if we could define what Hamas means in this case. Do we mean the undemocratic governing entity or do we mean the terrorist group? And is it even possible to separate the two. Given Palestine’s existence as an occupied state, and looking through history, it’s hard to imagine a government that isn’t tied to some form of paramilitary wing (see, for example the PLO or the IRA/Sinn Fein relationship).
So even if a governing coalition emerges with a different name, I’m doubtful that it wouldn’t end up with close ties to whatever organization fills the paramilitary void left by Hamas. And, unless there is some major change within the space, I would expect that group will eventually retake the name Hamas for a variety of reasons.
In some ways it become (a more grounded) “We have always been at war with Eastasia” situation. And I fear that so long as that allows Netanyahu to delay reckoning with all of his legal trouble, the party line will be “if we stop, Hammas will come back.”
If one’s definition of destroy Hamas is a military one, then it is both chimeric and false as generating security.
Unless there is an alternative that is political (and within the realm of reasonable from Palestinian perspective of not merely becoming Kapos of the camps) then there’s really not a genuine option and Hamas or essentially identical will regrow, and by Netanyahu elimination of Palestinian options logic, history will repeat, perhaps as tragic farce…
It’s not really clear to me what the goal of Hamas is now. They clearly cant win in any meaningful way unless winning means they manage to kill a few more Israeli soldiers while they lose a lot more of their people and a lot more civilians. It’s pretty clear now the rest of the Arab world isn’t going to come to their rescue. On the Israeli side they looking like they are winning since they are killing a lot more people and they have destroyed Gaza, but its also unclear what it will take for them to declare they have won so they can stop the war. In the ideal they eliminate all of Hamas but that’s not possible. Also, besides Netanyahu having personal reasons for wanting to continue the war its also good cover for taking over more of the West Bank. My prediction is that by the time the fighting ends Israel will control another large percentage there.
Steve
@Steven L. Taylor: @Matt Bernius: @Lounsbury: Increasingly, I’m coming back around to my assessment at the beginning of the war: that Israel’s only viable path to security is to simply take back Gaza and push the Palestinians out, whether into the West Bank or outside their territory. They’re already pretty close to maximum blowback from the international community.
@James Joyner: But wouldn’t that be ethnic cleansing? As such, I am not sure we are at maximum blowback.
@steve:
I think they want a regional war that will isolate Israel and place the Arab world in their side. I think Sinwar wanted that.
@steve: Hamas isn’t a nation state, and its goal isn’t to improve the life of Palestinians. It’s an idea, a meme, and it wins by not being ignored/forgotten. It wins by causing the other side to react, overreact, and make the ideas that Hamas espouses more attractive to people.
@James Joyner & @Steven L. Taylor:
One likely alternative to expulsion is to turn Gaza into a 19th-century-style colonial state. The local governing body would be under the direct control of the Israelis. That said, given this would be a case where the colonizer lives adjacent to the colonized, the displacement of the existing population would just take longer to occur.
Agreed. This is similar to the goals of people like Bin Laden (though in his case it was the US). In part Sinwar may succeed where Bin Laden failed because the structural factors and the people involved are much more conducive to this outcome.
@Steven L. Taylor: It is. But we’re getting near that already.
@James Joyner: if you adopt Netanyahu logic indeed that should be your conclusion. Of course you have then rendered Israel a paraih state ex USA engaging in neo colonial ethnic cleansing. And as USA nmbackex until it became too toxic the Bitha approach one can expect that again.
You have also answered the question of why Hamas, as given there is for Palestinians under the current Israëli government not a whisper of hope, why not turn to nihilism, the only other choice offered being becoming kapos.
@Steven L. Taylor: of course it is ethnic cleansing. It is the very definition of that.
And no they are not even close to maximum blowback, although American provincialism might give such illusion
@Steven L. Taylor: Sinear wanted to derail normalisation. That he did succeed in. His messianic Hail Mary trigger for war not really but his small goal yes. He might not have under a non Netanyahu path that offered some optionality beyond the gun and the whip, as certain Israëli stated early on. But that’s not the path taken.
@Matt Bernius: that is West Bank.
Expulsions will of course make it less deniavle the game on West Bank making the nihilistic response more attractive.
@Lounsbury:
Thank you for pointing that out. And I agree on this and all your other points.
@steve: I don’t think Hamas wants to win as much as they want Israel to lose.
Israel is becoming (more of a) a pariah state, losing support in Europe and America. If Harris wins, there will likely be a continued erosion of support from the US. I don’t think there will be any movement towards stopping the current round of fighting until after the election — there’s bound to be at least a few people there who can read newspapers.
Israel is now fighting two wars — Gaza and Lebanon — with a good chance for a third (Iran) all at once. Israel is a small country, it can’t maintain that indefinitely. (I expect that bin Ladin was happy with getting the US bogged down in wars for decades, but disappointed that the US could maintain that indefinitely.)
@James Joyner: The ethnic cleansing plan hits a major hurdle when you try to figure out where the Palestinians would go. Let’s say you managed to shove them across the border into Egypt, then you would likely have a giant refugee camp of bitter, angry Palestinians, right next to Israel.
That’s a lot like the previous status quo except that bombing the Palestinians now becomes an act of war with regards to Egypt. Or Jordan. Or Lebanon.
My half-tongue-in-cheek suggestion has been to try a kinder, gentler ethnic cleansing — pay Palestinians to leave, and make that payment enough that other countries would want to take them. I’m sure that other countries would be far more welcoming of immigrants who each have $1M than poor hungry refugees. And you might be able to get them away from Israel’s borders.
It would probably be a mistake, but it would be a new mistake. It wouldn’t be repeating the same mistakes that we know would fail.
So, for a year now I’ve been saying there is no present solution. By which I meant a solution that does not involve ethnic cleansing. (Boo, hiss, MR is such an asshole!) And now, here we are, talking about ethnic cleansing because, guess what? There is no fucking solution. Just a lot of romanticized nonsense from the Left and Lounsbury’s drunk-typed bluster and banalities.
So, to recap:
No, it’s not genocide. Because genocide is not paused for polio vaccines, and a 2% death rate is just plain old war. Soviet death rate in WW2? Give or take 14%. France in WW1? ~8 to 9%. You know a war that had a 2% death rate? The Civil War, and all they had were muskets and typhus.
No, the WB Palestinian State isn’t happening because no one in the region wants it to happen. Not Israel, not Jordan, not KSA, not Egypt or the PA or Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran. It is a fucking fantasy.
No, the US could not have snapped its fingers and ended all the problems because – let’s all say it together – there is no fucking solution, and had we cut off our smart weapons like all the campus experts demanded, there’d be a hell of a lot more dead Gazans and Bibi would have done what? Resorted to ethnic cleansing. My phrase then was to the effect that there’d be 2 million Gazans wandering the Sinai asking for a cup of water. Which is what, to my horror, we’re talking about now.
The only way out is for Gazans to start handing over Hamas terrorists to the IDF. IOW, surrender. Which I believe I suggested a year ago to outraged cries of oh, the injustice! Gaza is rubble and it will remain rubble until and unless Israel decides it’s time to rebuild. Gaza’s future is entirely, 100%, at the mercy of Israel. And the longer Hamas m’fers fire their missiles at Israel, the higher the rubble will pile.
You know, a high school drop-out kid book writer and former burglar/fugitive should not have been able to figure this out faster and more accurately than so many much better-qualified people.
@Michael Reynolds: you have figured out a Hollywood action movie analysis and nothing more.
Now of course if one is locked into Palestinian and Arab 19th century semi human retards mode of thinking (and using hysteric examples of SaudibArabia for mena) then of course you will have rather impoverished ideas as to what’s possible
However, as cases like Bosnia indicate, if there is in some fashion a willingness to develop compromise solutions, one can in fact achieve
The strident declaration that no neighbours wish to see a West Bank state is not much more than an assertion from your ideological position.
Of couse so long as Netanyahu continues with the thinly disguised drip drip annexation of West Bank, and pressing Palestinians into unsustainable Bantustans with just enough plausible deniability to allow Pr Joyner to politely deceive himself and you to declaim, and America to chug ahead enabling the avoidable descent to pariah state….
But of course I am but a simple arabophone who merely has ideas derived from ground experience and underwriting, rather too contaminated with pragmatic réflexion
@Gustopher: so long as the USA extends the blank cheque it can continue although descent to pariah state and losing or having constraints to EU market would hurt
The long term with both unencouraging internal demographics and an ideologically driven annexation agenda, and compartment blindered by significant ethnic prejudice if unexamined early mid 20th century views, it is not encouraging and that is sad as some modicum of forward non quasi messianic vision for “judea and samaria” could find sn exit ramp
There’s not going to be any ethnic cleansing. That isn’t the only option.
First, the war isn’t going to end until Israel gets its hostages back. Duss and many others seem to think it’s a good idea to threaten Israel with weapons deliveries to make that happen when, in reality, that would do the opposite. Deliberately weakening Israel’s negotiating position is not a path to a resolution – that was tried before and resulted in Hamas increasing its ceasefire demands. The message should, if anything, be the opposite.
Once some deal is made or Israel otherwise gets its hostages (both the dead and alive ones), then the question is what to do with Gaza. There are only three realistic possibilities:
1. Israel declares victory, goes home, and builds a bigger wall to ensure a 10/7 can’t happen again.
2. Israel occupies all or part of Gaza.
3. The international community – particularly Arab governments of interest – come in as Israel leaves to ensure a stable transition and to manage rebuilding of Gaza in terms of physical stuff, but also governing institutions and security. If one wants to throw US weight around in terms of threatening aid and weapons, it should be on this option, to force our Arab allies to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Particularly Egypt, which allowed thousands of tons of munitions to cross its border into Gaza. And Gaza used to be part of Egypt, it makes a lot more sense for the Egyptians to be the key player on the ground in Gaza than it does for Israel.
@Lounsbury: I don’t think a Harris administration continues the blank check. There would certainly be more limits than a Trump administration.
And, the era of both our parties being lockstep in support of Israel is ending. Mostly because Netanyahu so openly embraced the Republicans, rather than any great ideological shift, but also because of an ideological shift in the younger Democrats.
Certainly there can be no settlement until the hostages are returned. If that happens there may be one though. Two reasons: Israel’s stated goal of eliminating Hamas can not be achieved without occupation and annexation, which they do not want to do, and the IDF will probably want to have their units in Gaza available for Lebanon.
@Andy: to my understanding there’s actually not current evidence Egypt did any such thing, despite early Israeli assertions. The most recent evidence puvlished, in American newspapers,
is that Hamas rather than relying on arms smuggling rather created via massive diversion of funds from other purposes an extensive, massive literal underground arms fabrication industriel complex and developed sophisticated repurposing of civilian inputs of chemicals as in agri.
The idea the Egyptian state hat ousted its sworn enemy, the Brotherhood, was in bed with the Brotherhood offshoot, Hamas is not a realistic one even before such evidence.
If you wish to point complicité fingers, it is Qatar (host to the Ikhouane to Sissi permanent irritation) not Egypt and the near certainty that they were not simply incompetent in overseeing their billions on liquid funds that were diverted under Israëli noses. Qatari very dirty hands that is a piste
Although why any neighbouring Arab country should desire to make itself complicit in enabling Netanyahu fraction given 100 percent risk of political loss… Well American bribery perhaps can still write big enough cheques… maybe
Illustrative article: Hamas built an underground war machine to ensure its own survival
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/10/05/hamas-tunnels-weapons-gaza-war-october-7-attacks/
There are others, the general thrust the initial idea Hamas achieved its weapons etc via mass smuggling and reopened Egyptian tunnels is certainly wrong.
Mass diversion of aide funds and to my opinion certainly Qatari billions.
But otherwise I do agree, re no ethnic cleansing opération in reality as Netanyahu is not so blind nor a tactical bungler.
@Lounsbury:
The Egyptian government could see for itself that Hamas was getting weapons. It doesn’t take a genius to determine they must have passed through the border with Egypt. Whether they sanctioned it or merely looked the other way is a difference of degree.
Regardless, my point is that if the US is going to use sticks with allies WRT the Palestinian problem, it ought not to limit those sticks to Israel.
@dazedandconfused:
Except that Israeli cabinet Ministers are publicly saying that is exactly the goal, with no pushback from the rest of the government. Of course the goal is to annex Judea and Samaria. It’s been the goal since Rabin was assassinated. You can’t make that go away by simple wishing it out of existence.
@MarkedMan: They got heavy push-back from the military members of his various cabinets on that. Gallant particularly.
The IDF is normally pretty small, depending heavily on reservists. Occupying a hostile urban area of millions is a job that requires a lot of soldiers…a job which probes the deepest canyons of suck. Nobody with a grip thinks there will be a lot of Israeli citizen/reservists eagerly lining up for that.
In today’s Washington Post: The IDF after leveling an apartment building that killed at least 73 civilians, probably many more: “We emphasize that the area in question is an active war zone”. The target was allegedly an unnamed Hamas leader. The war zone in question is part of north Gaza where 40,ooo individuals live and have nowhere to go. According to IDF’s logic all 40,ooo can be legitimately killed. Me on the other hand, unlike Andy, MR (who I respect) and a few others, am not afraid to call it a rationalization for genocide.