Sinwar’s Elimination Forces Israel’s Next Move

On December 30, 2006, the world watched the execution of Saddam Hussein, a dictator who had ruled Iraq with an iron fist for decades. Captured in 2003, after hiding in a hole near his hometown of Tikrit, Saddam’s capture and eventual trial marked a significant victory for the U.S.-led coalition that had invaded Iraq earlier that year. His trial was a spectacle—Saddam, still defiant, claimed his presidency and dismissed the court’s legitimacy while his defense team faced constant threats. Even in his final moments, as he stood at the gallows, Saddam remained composed, invoking his faith and challenging his captors. His execution was swift, but the aftermath of his fall was anything but.

For many, Saddam’s death symbolized the end of an era—a tyrant’s reign brought to an end. Yet, the execution also marked the beginning of a new chapter in Iraq, one filled with sectarian violence, political instability, and the eventual rise of the Islamic State (ISIS). What was intended to be the liberation of Iraq from tyranny quickly became a descent into chaos, as power vacuums left by Saddam’s removal and the de-Ba’athification of Iraq’s institutions set the stage for insurgency and radicalism. One of the most striking outcomes was the emergence of ISIS, a group that to this day thrives in the very chaos that followed Saddam’s execution.

The comparison to current events is stark. The elimination of Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, may seem like a triumph, much like the capture of Saddam Hussein once did. However, history reminds us that removing a key figure in a conflict can be just the beginning of a far more complex and dangerous game. The war, initially framed as an effort to rescue hostages and weaken Hamas, could evolve into something far more precarious if the goals are not clear.

As such, the elimination of Sinwar may intensify the pressure on Israel to demonstrate that the war is about more than just military victories—it is about bringing the hostages home and securing peace. If not, the world, and Israel’s own citizens, may begin to ask the same questions that emerged in post-Saddam Iraq: Was the war really about freedom, or something else entirely?

With the elimination of Yahya Sinwar, Israel finds itself at a crossroads, with two primary scenarios emerging. The first is that Israel recognizes the need to work toward the creation of a Palestinian state that holds authority over both Gaza and the West Bank. The second is that Israel chooses not to pursue this course. Each scenario leads to very different possibilities and outcomes, shaping the region’s future in profound ways.

If Israel opts not to work toward the establishment of a Palestinian state, three potential outcomes could unfold. The first would see Israel reoccupying the Gaza Strip, a costly and politically charged option that risks international condemnation and long-term entanglement. The second possibility is that Israel prolongs the war indefinitely, avoiding any decisive moves while keeping the conflict simmering. This would allow Israel to sidestep difficult decisions but at the cost of ongoing violence and instability. The third outcome could involve Israel relinquishing control of Gaza to local mafias, or “chamulot,” leaving the territory under the influence of various criminal organizations rather than a centralized authority.

However, if Israel chooses to work toward the creation of a Palestinian state, the path forward narrows significantly to a single possibility. In this scenario, foreign nations would likely take control of the Gaza Strip, stepping in to stabilize the region and empower the Palestinian Authority. This approach would pave the way for the Palestinian Authority to eventually govern both Gaza and the West Bank, potentially leading to long-term peace and stability under a recognized Palestinian state.

Regarding the second goal of the war, which is to return the hostages safely the situation does not become easier. In the first scenario, where Israel does not work toward the creation of a Palestinian state, there are only two potential paths to achieving this objective. The first is through military force, which would involve a continuation of the war and potentially result in Israel reoccupying Gaza. This military solution could impose significant costs and would likely be accompanied by a long-term occupation, further entrenching the conflict. The second option would be to negotiate with local mafias (chamulot), exchanging control of the strip for the safe return of the hostages. This approach would entail transferring power to these criminal networks, which might temporarily resolve the hostage crisis but leave Gaza under fragmented and lawless leadership.

In the second scenario, where Israel works toward the creation of a Palestinian state, the only way to secure the return of the hostages would be through negotiation. In this case, Israel would withdraw completely from the Gaza Strip, which would not be an issue since, in this scenario, Israel acknowledges that it no longer has a stake in governing Gaza. A deal would likely involve releasing Palestinian prisoners, some of whom may become key figures in a future Palestinian state. By going down this path, Israel would be accepting the reality of a Palestinian state with new leadership, which would also open the door to future diplomatic and security negotiations in a more stable regional framework.

To try to anticipate which path Israel may take after Yahya Sinwar’s elimination, we can consider several key facts that hint at the direction things might go.

The first indication comes from Hamas itself. On Friday, Hamas officially acknowledged Sinwar’s death but made it clear that their demands remain unchanged. They continue to insist on an end to the war, a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and the release of Palestinian prisoners. Hamas shows no signs of compromising on these conditions in the near future. In fact, until a new leader is chosen to replace Sinwar, which could take days or even weeks, there seems to be no prospect for any shift in their position. This stalemate creates a significant barrier to any immediate diplomatic resolution.

The international community, while cautiously optimistic about the potential stability Sinwar’s elimination might bring, faces a familiar challenge. Global leaders, including President Biden, have expressed hope that this moment could serve as an opportunity to de-escalate the violence in Gaza and reach a political settlement. Statements from U.S. officials and European leaders reflect a collective desire to leverage this moment to end the war. However, similar sentiments were voiced after the death of Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s Secretary General, yet the conflict in southern Lebanon has only deepened despite these hopeful projections. The gap between international expectations and the on-the-ground reality in Israel’s strategic decisions remains wide. While global pressure might be mounting, recent history shows that such pressure alone is unlikely to sway Israel’s military and political trajectory.

Perhaps the most telling fact is Prime Minister Netanyahu’s own stance, expressed early in the war. In a closed conversation at the Knesset, Netanyahu admitted that one of the main reasons for the ongoing tension between him and President Biden is his refusal to allow the creation of a Palestinian state. Netanyahu has made it clear that he opposes any solution that leads to the establishment of a Palestinian state, which he sees as a threat to the future of Zionism. This underlying stance is critical, as it suggests that Netanyahu is more likely to favor continued military action or a more extreme solution, rather than seizing this moment to negotiate a two-state solution. Given his history of resisting U.S. pressure, Netanyahu’s leadership could signal that Israel will continue down a path that avoids any concessions toward Palestinian statehood.

In this manner, the elimination of Yahya Sinwar places the responsibility squarely on Israel’s shoulders, forcing it to make a decisive choice before it can explore the various possibilities that lie ahead. Up until now, Prime Minister Netanyahu has avoided making a concrete decision because each option presents significant risks. If he pursues a deal, he risks alienating his far-right coalition partners, which could collapse his government and trigger new elections. After the events of October 7th, Netanyahu faces uncertainty about whether he would retain enough political support to be re-elected. This fear has kept him in a holding pattern, avoiding any move that might jeopardize his position.

On the other hand, if Netanyahu caves to the demands of his far-right coalition—which includes voices from his own party advocating for a military occupation and resettling Gaza with Jewish settlements—Israel would face severe international repercussions. Such a move would erode Israel’s legitimacy on the global stage and could even lead to arms embargoes from Western allies, all while the looming threat of Iran persists. Thus, Netanyahu has found some comfort in delaying any decision, maintaining a precarious balance.

However, Sinwar’s elimination may have accelerated the timeline, pushing Israel to reveal its true intentions. Israel will now have to show the world whether the war was genuinely about bringing the hostages home and dismantling Hamas’ military and political capabilities, or if it was a calculated opportunity to deepen its military occupation of Gaza. The world, and Israel’s own citizens, are waiting for a clear answer—one that could shape the future of the region for years to come.

The next few days will bring clarity on the path Israel ultimately decides to take. With the elimination of Yahya Sinwar, the moment for decisive action has arrived, and Israel can no longer delay its choice. Whether Israel opts to pursue a military solution or move toward negotiations, the decision will shape not only the future of Gaza but also Israel’s standing on the global stage. All eyes are on Prime Minister Netanyahu, as he navigates immense pressure from his far-right coalition and the international community, both of whom demand very different outcomes.

If history has taught us anything, it’s that handing control of Gaza to local mafias while avoiding a broader political decision could lead to chaos. The power vacuum created by such a move would mirror the instability we witnessed in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein, as well as in Gaza in the past, where the lack of strong political leadership allowed new radicals to rise to power, resulting in more violence and terrorism. Yet, with Netanyahu facing intense pressure from his far-right government on one side, and the international community pushing for a political resolution on the other, this could very well be the path he chooses. The consequences of such a decision, however, may only perpetuate the conflict rather than resolve it, raising the stakes for Israel’s future security and regional stability. Up until now, many reports suggested that Netanyahu was stalling, waiting for the U.S. election in a little less than three weeks to make a decision. However, after Sinwar’s elimination, it is highly improbable that he has that much time.