Photograph Source: IDF Spokesperson’s Unit – CC BY-SA 3.0

Ever since the October 7 attack last year, Israeli intelligence claimed that Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’s military leader, was hiding deep within Gaza’s complex underground tunnels, using Israeli hostages as a strategic shield. They alleged that he was using these hostages as a deterrent to complicate any rescue attempt or targeted strike. Sinwar’s elusiveness became almost mythic.

Yet, his death has proven that narrative wrong. Contrary to prior assessments, Sinwar wasn’t hiding underground. Instead, Israeli forces found him above ground, dressed in military attire, in the rubble of a building. He was actively participating on the battlefield, not cowering in tunnels.

This revelation has generated some prickly questions about the credibility of Israel’s intelligence agencies. How much does Israel truly know about the remaining hostages’ whereabouts? This question will intensify the pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to present a viable strategy for their rescue.

Sinwar’s death has also prompted deeper concerns. For instance, can Israel effectively monitor and control the situation in Gaza, especially when its intelligence regarding key figures like Sinwar appears flawed? Indeed, with Sinwar’s killing, new uncertainties have emerged about the fate of the hostages, the leadership of Hamas, and the broader trajectory of this protracted conflict.

Revolutionary movements often revolve around their charismatic leaders, whether in the shadows or out in the open. The reality is that Hamas has now lost one of its key figures. But this isn’t the first time Hamas has faced such a blow. The organization has a long history of surviving and recalibrating after losing its leaders. The list is not short: Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz el-Rantisi, and, more recently, Ismail Haniyeh. These figures have spanned the spiritual, political, and military realms.

Yet, Sinwar’s death carries unique weight, not just because of his position, but due to his personal trajectory. He wasn’t just a figurehead within a militant group. He was a hardliner, even by Hamas’ standards. He also carried unique clout, largely because of his deep ties to Hamas’s military wing, having served as the head of its counterintelligence. What set Sinwar apart from other leaders, many of whom operated in exile, was his physical presence in Gaza. While some in the upper echelons of Hamas led from afar, Sinwar remained entrenched in the heart of the besieged Strip. His leadership style reflected the intractable realities of life under siege, making him a figure of both fear and respect within the organization.

Replacing a leader in Hamas is not as simple as swapping one face for another. Each time a leader is killed, the spiritual, political, and military forces within the group must realign. What’s different now, however, is the fluid nature of the struggle itself. For nearly 80 years, Palestinians have remained trapped in a conflict that defies political or diplomatic resolution. Sinwar, like others before him, envisioned a way forward. With his death, Hamas faces a critical crossroads. The world is changing, and Hamas must change with it or risk becoming irrelevant. New leaders will undoubtedly rise. To be successful, they’ll need to align their strategies to a rapidly shifting global and regional landscape.

Israel’s current military campaign appears aimed at dismantling the leadership of groups like Hamas, a reflection of its long-standing struggle to resolve the Palestinian question. The devastation of Gaza and the suffering of its people speak to the brutal nature of this conflict. In many ways, the region has been caught in a vicious cycle of violence, where the killing of a leader like Sinwar doesn’t quell the resistance but adds fuel to the fire. The echoes of past conflicts—like those in Lebanon—continue to shape this grim and unresolved narrative as war appears only to breed more war.

Yet, despite these seemingly decisive blows, Hamas endures. Each fallen leader’s story becomes legend, inspiring a new generation that is often more militant, more extreme, and even harder to negotiate with. Sinwar’s demise does not signal the end of Hamas at all. Sure, it will temporarily reduce the immediate threat, offering Israel a brief sense of tactical respite. But it is unlikely to end the war or halt the bloodshed in Gaza, where the death toll has surpassed 40,000.

And it certainly doesn’t suggest that peace, or a two-state solution, is suddenly on the horizon. The hard truth remains: the occupation persists, and the establishment of a Palestinian state is as distant a dream as ever.

This originally appeared on FPIF.

The post Hamas Without Sinwar: a Setback or a Catalyst? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.