Postscript: What Did Sinwar Want? — In His Own Words

[Jadaliyya publishes today the following excerpts by Khaled Hroub from his forthcoming 3rd edition of Hamas: A Beginner’s Guide, London: Pluto Press. The book is scheduled for publication on 20 March 2025.]

In the first months of Israel’s genocide on Gaza, its official hasbara produced the term ‘The butcher of Khan Younis’ to describe Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’s leader who was killed by Israel while fighting in Rafah on 17 October 2024. Western media promptly and blindly picked up the vilifying label. The haste and uncritical manner at which this media has used the term has been truly deplorable. A scan of major Western media including New York Times, Washington Post, CNN,BBC, Le Monde, Le Figaro, Deutsche Welle, and Der Spiegel, reveals that they all used the term without any serious attribution.[i] What is utterly shocking is the claim by Israeli propaganda and its Western allies that Sinwar was given that name by Gazans. For someone who spent around 30 years researching Hamas, its political thought, praxis and leaders, I was stunned by the term as well as by Western complicity in consuming it along with whatever lies Israel had thrown on them – and I wanted to dig out any origin of this infamy, if any. I have asked dozens of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, and mainly from Khan Younis refugee camp, where Sinwar was born, and the city of Khan Younis, about the alleged ‘nickname’ of Sinwar. Nobody had ever heard of it before it was fabricated by the Israeli propaganda machine and then exported to Western media. Even Sinwar’s critics and opponents expressed revulsion over such a defaming title purportedly attributed to him by his fellow Palestinians.

For historians of Palestine and of the successive wars on the Palestinians, there is indeed a qualified candidate whose name comes first as the real ‘butcher of Khan Younis’. This was the late Moshe Dayan, Israel’s chief of staff, whose troops massacred at least 275 civilian Palestinians in Khan Younis on 3 November 1956.[ii] Sinwar was born six years after that massacre, whose haunting and enduring memories had impacted the destinies of many young Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, leaving them, including Sinwar himself, angry and prepared for future resistance.

In 1988 and at the age of 26, Sinwar was arrested and given four life-term sentences, amounting to 426 years. In prison, where he spent 23 years, he gradually grew into the leader that many would come to know – educating himself, reading extensively, writing novels and learning Hebrew – all while serving as the prison leader of his group. As his leadership talents were further polished in jail, he built strong relations with other imprisoned Palestinian leaders of rivalling factions including Fatah. Those leaders, along with Sinwar, produced the ‘Prisoners’ Document of National Unity’ in 2006, which has been since regarded as a major reference point for Palestinian national consensus, based on accepting a Palestinian state in 1967 borders. Sinwar was freed from jail in 2011 in a prisoner exchange involving more than a thousand Palestinian prisoners in return for an Israeli soldier that was captured by Hamas in 2005. Upon his release, Sinwar wasted no time in resuming his path of resistance, showing little interest in embracing the newfound freedom for personal gains. Speedily, he rose within Hamas’s ranks and became a member its Political Bureau in 2014; then, in 2017, he was elected as the movement’s leader in Gaza. On 6 August 2024, two months before his death, Hamas chose him to replace Ismail Haniya, Hamas’s top leader who had been assassinated by Israel in Tehran a week earlier.

Sinwar’s Stages of Resistance and Politics

Beyond being a resolute military commander, Sinwar emerged as a shrewd political figure, skilfully blending ideology with pragmatism. In retrospect, we can trace the phase-based political and military action that he had envisioned and followed through from at least 2017. This approach began with efforts to end the Palestinian division, where Sinwar made the needed compromises to Fatah to achieve unity, offering readiness to give up Gaza’s rule to a national unity government under the presidency of Mahmoud Abbas.[iii] The proposed ‘National Accord Government’ would need comprehensive support from all parties to guarantee its success, including freezing Hamas’s military resistance and adhering only to non-violent resistance. Although the unity government never materialized, Sinwar’s next phase was to embrace non-violent resistance in the form of the Great March of Return that started as a popular, grassroot initiative in March 2018 and lasted until December 2019. Hopes that this effort would garner the worlds’ attention proved unfulfilled. Consequently, Hamas resorted to military resistance as exemplified in the May 2021 Sword of Jerusalem confrontation against Israel, intervening in support of the Palestinians in Jerusalem and the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood. Again, the world betrayed the Palestinians and Gaza was left suffocating by the Israeli blockade. Misery, impasse and anger led to the next phase: 7 October, which Sinwar had not so vaguely warned about for many years. All was laid out publicly at a press conference that Sinwar convened on 26 May 2021 following the Sword of Jerusalem confrontation. In what follows and in Sinwar’s own words, quoted at length to convey the core of his ideas, the warnings and ‘suggested’ phases of forms resistance were identified as if Sinwar was outlining his upcoming plans on air (all quotes hereinafter are translated from the press conference held on May 26, 2021 unless otherwise indicated). 

The Non-Violent Resistance of the March of Return

Clearly and straightforwardly, Sinwar stated that his and Hamas’s approach prioritizes non-violent resistance considering it the movement’s number one option. 

… to spare our people the horrors of war, we truly believe – as we have always believed – that our people must combine different means of resistance: peaceful or popular resistance … along with armed resistance in its various forms, in addition to political and diplomatic efforts. Everyone knows and acknowledges that we, and the other Palestinian resistance factions, from March 2018 to March 2020, participated in those wonderful peaceful popular resistance demonstrations – the Great March of Return. By the grace of Allah, we portrayed an incredibly beautiful image through these marches, of a civilized people engaging in such peaceful, popular resistance, which sometimes involved some rougher methods.

In fact, these words echo much of Sinwar’s talk in a long interview conducted by an Italian journalist and published in the Israeli press in May 2018, where he said ‘who would like to face a nuclear power with slingshots?

The goal of return marches, according to Sinwar, was to draw world’s attention to what is happening in Gaza and Palestine, and create political action: 

We hoped that the free and civilized world and international organizations would respond [to our non-violent March of Return] on two fronts: First, to appreciate this peaceful movement and curb the enemy’s use of excessive force and deadly violence against our people. Second, we hoped they would pressure the enemy and the occupation to fulfil our people’s demands and rights. But unfortunately, over two years, the Zionist war machine continued to target our sons and daughters, with snipers from the occupation army killing them. They started to amuse themselves by targeting our sons and daughters, sniping them in their foreheads, hearts, and eyes or severing their limbs – legs and arms. We now have a significant number of these wounded and martyred, while the world just watches. [Meanwhile], the conscience of the free world didn’t wake up, and it didn’t move. We say once again that we prefer to confront this occupation through peaceful means, through popular resistance. We prefer that to be the way. But if this enemy continues to commit crimes and crosses red lines, we must resort to armed resistance. Our first option to achieve our people’s goals and demands through peaceful means. However, if the world does not respond, and if this occupation does not respond or commits serious crimes, then our resistance must act to deter them. (emphasis added).

The Military Resistance and the Sword of Jerusalem

Sinwar spoke passionately and in a high, threatening tone about Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa as being intolerable red lines by Hamas. At the press conference, he sequenced the engagement of Hamas in the Sword of Jerusalem confrontation as necessary move by his movement after the inaction showed by the whole world regarding Hamas’s non-violent resistance in the March of Return. He said that the Sword of Jerusalem was only a message of warning: 

We … had no choice but to say our word with iron and fire and with missiles on Jerusalem first, so that the entire world and the leaders of the occupation would know that Al-Aqsa has men who protect it and that we are prepared to sacrifice the most precious and valuable things for the sake of Al-Aqsa Mosque, for the sake of Sheikh Jarrah, for the sake of Al-Bustan neighbourhood, and for all the issues of our homeland, especially in the holy city.

… we have risen up. For the sake of our sanctities, for our rights, and we wanted to send a message: believe me, we only wanted to send a message to the enemy and to the entire world that enough playing with fire, and that when we say enough playing with fire, we mean enough playing with fire. We do not issue threats or warnings in vain, let someone come with a one statement or a threat that we once issued and did not implement it on the ground … the world should know that this [the Sword of Jerusalem] was just a rehearsal. Just a small manoeuvre for what could happen if [Israel] touches Al-Aqsa Mosque again (emphasis added).

Pressure and Political Solutions

As in the case with the March of Return, Sinwar hoped that after the Sword of Jerusalem that drew the world’s attention to Palestine, a political momentum would be created and cracks on the deadlock faced the Palestinians would appear. At the press conference he explained how the Palestinians have made themselves ready, including Hamas, to function in line with international law and resolutions: 

Regarding the international diplomacy that took place during this round of conflict with the Zionist occupation and aggression against us in Gaza, there has certainly been significant action. The whole world, including major powers, even the new American administration in the United States, as well as major European powers, moved towards the idea that there must be a comprehensive solution to the Palestinian situation. It has become very clear that the triggers for explosion are still present, and things could erupt again at any moment. We say, therefore, that today there is an opportunity for the world to seize this moment and pressure the occupation to comply with international law and international resolutions. Earlier, I was in a meeting with various foreign agencies and television channels from around the world. One of the reporters from an American television asked me, ‘What is your message to President Biden?’ I replied with one sentence: Compel the occupation to adhere to international law and international resolutions. If the occupation complies, there is the possibility for a long-term truce, whether for four years, five years, or more.[iv] If the world can pressure the occupation to withdraw from the West Bank, dismantle the settlements in the West Bank, and withdraw from East Jerusalem, then there is a possibility for this long-term ceasefire.

… [And] the release of the prisoners, lifting the blockade on Gaza, allowing us to hold our elections in Jerusalem, and to establish our Palestinian state on part of our land – this would certainly open the door for the possibility of a relatively long-term truce that postpones the conflict and achieves a level of stability in the region. Is the world serious about pressuring the occupation to achieve this? We hope that the latest round has led to a shift in the awareness of international leaders to push for such a scenario.

The political pragmatism showed in Sinwar’s emphasis on a comprehensive solution, ending the occupation, and estasblishing a Palestinian state in 1967 borders contradicts caterogically with the image of politically aimless leader spread about him by Israeli and American politicians and media. Sinwar continues his press conference statements by saying:

We in Hamas, through our Charter and through the National Reconciliation Document that we signed,[v] along with the factions of the Palestinian people, have clearly stated that we are ready to accept the common denominators agreed upon by Palestinians. While these common denominators do not represent the political ideology of Hamas – our political ideology is clear and well-known: we stand for the removal of Israel through jihad and armed struggle; this is our belief. The occupation must be removed and swept away from all of our land. However, for the sake of Palestinian unity and the common Palestinian goals, and due to international will, we have said that we are ready to pursue this option. We have no problem with it if the major world powers and international organizations are prepared to compel the occupation to respect international law and international resolutions – so that we can establish our state on our land in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza, with the dismantling of the settlements, the release of prisoners, the lifting of the blockade and the return of refugees. This makes the possibility of a long-term truce or ceasefire viable, relatively speaking. There is no doubt about this. 

The Inevitable Explosion: October 7

In his threatening tone to Israel over Al-Aqsa being a red line, Sinwar warned of what could happen if Israel continues its squeezing policies on the Mosque and Palestinians in Jerusalem. The lines of the response that Sinwar anticipates could inform of what he had in mind while planning the 7 October attacks, specifically the anticipation of other fronts to immediately engage once the surprise strike comes out from Gaza. These are the details of what he imagined and wanted to happen if the red line of Al-Aqsa was crossed: 

Al-Aqsa Mosque and Jerusalem are a red line. If you want more time to stay, then stay away from Al-Aqsa Mosque and Jerusalem. The decision to eliminate your state depends on implementing your plans in Al-Aqsa Mosque and Jerusalem. [We have] an existing and known scenario, and the rehearsal has been made for it [i.e. the Sword of Al-Aqsa confrontation]. Gaza will launch its resistance with all its strength, and the West Bank will explode with all its power. Our people will attack all the settlements at once. Our heroes, even the security forces [of the Palestinian Authority] in the West Bank, will stand up for you at all the intersections and roads. They will attack you in all the settlements throughout the West Bank, and our people inside [in Israel] will rise up, a million demonstrators or more, who will take to the streets and close the roads, and I am absolutely certain that we have no less than ten thousand potential martyrs there [ready to function] (emphasis added).

Hinting to his anticipation of regional forces like Hizballah and Iran joining this imagined battle, Sinwar stated the following: 

The masses of our people and our nation will rush across the borders, flowing like torrential floods to uproot your entity, and the resistance in the region, all the living forces, will rush to hit you with the utmost and most of their strength, God willing, and I am confident that the shape of the entire Middle East will become different from the Middle East in which we live.

Talking about the hard economic conditions in the Gaza Strip, Sinwar issued another chilling warning saying: ‘And we, the leadership of the resistance, pledge that this year [2021], by the will of Allah, will not pass without a major breakthrough in the economic and humanitarian life of the Gaza Strip. This year will not pass, and the problems in Gaza, caused by the blockade, the war, and the destruction, will not remain as they are. Let the entire world hear:  we will burn everything – green and dry – if the problems of Gaza are not resolved now’ (emphasis added).

Conclusion

Sinwar’s calculations about resistance flooding the borders once a strike from Gaza on Israel is conducted proved to be wishful thinking. He dedicated his attention to the details of the small picture and simplified the complexities of the bigger one, that included his allies in the axis of resistance. During his youth, in his high school and university years, Sinwar worked as a bricklayer in his free time to help his family and earn a living. Two people whose small homes were built by Sinwar, that I talked to, spoke highly of his patience, precision and meticulous work. He also built parts of the long brick-walls surrounding the Islamic University in Gaza. As a bricklayer, and later builder of Hamas’s resistance capabilities, he was dedicated to the details, the precise alignment and keeping things perfectly in line. It seems that he was overwhelming himself in refining the resistance in Gaza, while underestimating other imposing factors and limitations beyond his control. The jury is still out on his military and political decisions and may remain so for years to come.

But, aside from the vilifying Israeli and Western hasbara, Yahya Sinwar, for the Palestinian people and for many around the world, cuts a profile of a heroic figure that lived, fought and died legendarily. His was a rebellious and free soul as reported by Nabeeh ‘Awada, a Lebanese communist who was imprisoned with Sinwar from 1991to 1995, saying: “Sinwar used to play table tennis bare foot in Ashkelon prison,” built on the land of the Palestinian village Asqalan, from which Sinwar’s grandparents were expelled in 1948. Sinwar said he wanted his feet to touch the land of Palestine, shouting out: ‘I’m not in prison, I’m on my land, I’m free here in my homeland!’