Will Benjamin Netanyahu continue the Gaza war after the death of Hamas chief?

Israel’s killing of Yahya Sinwar is its most symbolic achievement of the war it has waged against Hamas since the militant group invaded last year and carried out the deadliest attack in the country’s history.

But diplomats and analysts said that while the death of the Hamas leader, the mastermind of the October 7 2023 assault, was a body blow for the Palestinian militant group, it would not necessarily mark its collapse nor — on its own — bring an end to the devastating war in Gaza.

When Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the Israeli public on Thursday night, the prime minister confirmed as much. Sinwar’s killing, he said, was an “important moment” in the war. But, he continued, the fighting would not end until the 101 hostages still held by Hamas in Gaza had been freed.

“We will continue with all our strength until the return home of all your loved ones, who are our loved ones,” he said in a recorded video statement. “This is our highest commitment. This is my highest commitment.”

However, even as Netanyahu pledged to continue the fighting, US officials said they would launch a renewed effort to broker a deal to end the war in Gaza, which diplomats see as the best way to prevent the Middle East from descending into an even broader conflict.

“It’s time for this war to end and bring these hostages home,” said US President Joe Biden. “I talked with [Netanyahu] about that. We’re going to work out what, what is the day after now. How do we secure Gaza and move on.”

One initiative being discussed would see Israel offer a “pause” in its offensive in return for the release of the remaining Israeli hostages in Gaza, a western diplomat said.

The deal would also involve a guarantee of the physical safety of Hamas fighters who freed the hostages and a resumption of talks on an end to the war, they added.

Netanyahu appeared to endorse a different version of this idea in his statement, urging militants still holding hostages in the enclave to release them and be allowed to live — but without mentioning a ceasefire. 

Throughout the past year, Hamas has resisted any deal that would involve freeing the hostages without a guarantee that the war would end, fearing that otherwise they would be giving up their only card for nothing in return.

Whether any diplomatic push has any chance of succeeding also depends in part on what happens to Hamas after Sinwar’s killing. For the past year, he has been the central decision maker in the organisation, both on the war in Gaza, and in the talks on a hostage deal. 

In his absence, analysts said a key question would be the extent to which Hamas fragmented, and whether its leadership was able to ensure that the fighters holding the remaining hostages — who are believed to be in multiple locations — abided by any deal to release them.

Michael Milshtein, a former Israeli intelligence official, said it was possible Sinwar would be replaced by multiple people, with his brother, Mohammed, taking over Hamas’s military operations in Gaza, and other political leaders based in Qatar, such as Khaled Meshaal, and Khalil al-Hayya, taking on the group’s political leadership.

“I would say very cautiously that maybe Sinwar’s killing creates an opportunity for a deal,” Milshtein said. “First of all, the [political leaders based in Doha] are under the leverage of the Qataris. And maybe they will . . . not be as stubborn as Sinwar was.”

Ibrahim Dalalsha, head of the Ramallah-based Horizon Center think-tank, said Sinwar’s death was likely to lead to greater “decentralisation and fragmentation” in Hamas.

“You hit the head, but the body is still dealing with an ongoing [Israeli military] operation and becoming more ruthless in maintaining their control,” he said.

“We’re still far from total surrender and collapse. [The new leaders] may be willing to soften their conditions relative to the line Sinwar was taking, but only up to a point — otherwise they won’t really be a Hamas leadership,” Dalalsha said. 

Any deal will also depend on whether Netanyahu’s far-right government, emboldened by a number of military successes against Hamas and the Lebanese militant group Hizbollah, deems the killing of its number-one target sufficient to declare the “total victory” he has repeatedly promised.

Over the past 12 months, Netanyahu — under pressure from far-right politicians on whom his coalition depends — had repeatedly thwarted attempts by mediators from the US, Qatar and Egypt to thrash out a deal, according to people briefed on the negotiations. 

Israeli and US officials have rejected such characterisations, mostly blaming Sinwar and Hamas for undermining the talks.

But in a sign of continued resistance to a deal from Netanyahu’s far-right partners, on Thursday night ultranationalist ministers in his cabinet again rejected any halt to the war.

“A historic assassination . . . we must continue with all our strength until the total victory!” Itamar Ben-Gvir, national security minister, wrote on X. 

Meanwhile, finance minister Bezalel Smotrich issued a statement blasting talk “from overseas about an ‘opportunity to stop the war’”, and vowed that the campaign “will not stop until the complete destruction of Hamas”. 

However, the families of the hostages still held in Gaza demanded that Netanyahu do a deal immediately. “We call on the Israeli government, world leaders, and mediating countries to leverage the military achievement into a diplomatic one by pursuing an immediate agreement for the release of all 101 hostages,” they said in a statement on Thursday.

Indefinite war would be ruinous not only for Gaza, where Israel’s offensive has killed more than 42,000 people, according to Palestinian officials, but also for Israel and especially the hostages, warned the western diplomat. 

“The assassination of Sinwar is the final stage of active military combat,” they said, adding that the ball was now in Israel’s court.

“The likelihood of a vacuum is very high, chaos is coming . . . The question for Israel is how much farther do you want to go with this [war]? They need to decide.”