Two Ruthless Leaders: How Yahya Sinwar and Benjamin Netanyahu Shaped the Path to October 7th and Beyond

Written by Jerry Elman, September 3, 2024

The events of October 7th, 2023, marked a tragic and pivotal moment in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with a coordinated surprise attack by Hamas resulting in over 1,400 Israeli deaths, the abduction of many hostages, and a full-scale military response from Israel. At the center of this unfolding drama are two leaders: Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, and Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel. Both men, driven by ruthless ambition and self-focused strategies, have significantly contributed to the path leading to this catastrophic escalation and continue to shape its aftermath.

Yahya Sinwar: The Ruthless Strategist of Hamas

Yahya Sinwar, often referred to as the “Butcher of Khan Younis,” is known for his brutal tactics and unwavering commitment to the destruction of Israel. As the leader of Hamas in Gaza, Sinwar has a reputation for being a hardliner, both within Hamas and in his dealings with Israel.

Sinwar’s Rise to Power

Sinwar’s rise in Hamas began with his involvement in founding the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, and his orchestration of violent attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians. Imprisoned by Israel in 1988 for his role in the kidnapping and murder of two Israeli soldiers, Sinwar was released in the 2011 Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, returning to Gaza as a hero among Palestinians.

His return marked a turning point in Hamas’s internal politics. Sinwar quickly moved up the ranks, positioning himself as a strongman within the organization, favoring a militant stance over political compromise. He has consistently rejected any peace negotiations with Israel and has been a vocal advocate for armed resistance and the use of violence to achieve Hamas’s goals.

The Architect of the October 7th Attack

As the mastermind behind the October 7th attack, Sinwar orchestrated one of the deadliest assaults on Israel in recent history and the most Jews killed in one day since the Holocaust. His strategy was clear: to inflict maximum civilian casualties and to capture hostages as leverage against Israel. The attack was designed not just to strike at Israel but to demonstrate Hamas’s capability, resilience, and willingness to escalate the conflict.

Multiple factors drove Sinwar’s decision to launch such a devastating attack:

1. Demonstrating Power and Control: Sinwar aimed to reassert his authority within Hamas and among Palestinians, presenting himself as the true leader of the resistance against Israel.
2. Provoking a Response: Sinwar calculated that a dramatic escalation would provoke a severe Israeli military response, which he could use to rally international sympathy for the Palestinian cause, casting Hamas as a defender against Israeli aggression.
3. Weakening Internal Rivals: By positioning Hamas as the primary force of resistance, Sinwar sought to undermine the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, whom some Palestinians view as ineffective against Israel.
4. Weaponizing Gazan Suffering: Sinwar’s indifference to the suffering of Gazans is a deliberate strategy. By ensuring that Gazans bear a heavy burden, Sinwar aims to garner international sympathy, increase pressure on Israel, and maintain his leadership by portraying himself as an uncompromising defender of Palestinian rights. This tactic uses the suffering of his own people to achieve ideological aims, regardless of humanitarian cost.
5. Interfering with Humanitarian Aid: Hamas has also been reported to hijack or interfere with the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza. Despite international efforts to provide food, medical supplies, and fuel to civilians, Hamas often diverts these resources for its own purposes, including military operations and maintaining its governance infrastructure. This diversion of aid exacerbates the suffering of the Gazan population, while Hamas prioritizes its fighters and political loyalists over the needs of the broader civilian community.

Benjamin Netanyahu: The Political Survivor Focused on Personal Gain

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving Prime Minister, is known for navigating complex political landscapes and outmaneuvering rivals. However, his leadership—focused on personal and political gains rather than a coherent national strategy—has come under intense scrutiny following the October 7th attack.

Netanyahu Caught Off Guard Ahead of the October 7th Attack

Netanyahu and Israeli intelligence were caught off guard by the scale and coordination of the October 7th attack. Several factors contributed to this intelligence failure:

1. Overconfidence in Israel’s Security Measures: Netanyahu and his government relied heavily on technological surveillance, border fortifications, and intelligence gathering to contain threats from Gaza. This reliance created a false sense of security and led to complacency regarding the capabilities of Hamas.
2. Underestimation of Hamas’s Intentions: Netanyahu’s administration had underestimated the determination and capabilities of Hamas under Sinwar’s leadership. Despite periodic skirmishes and exchanges of fire, Israeli intelligence did not anticipate that Hamas would launch a large-scale attack involving ground, air, and sea operations.
3. Focus on Other Political Priorities: Netanyahu was preoccupied with domestic political concerns, including judicial reforms, corruption charges, and maintaining his political base. This distracted his government from fully addressing or preparing for escalating threats from Gaza.
4. Disregard for Warnings and Intelligence Signals: There were indications that Hamas was preparing for a significant escalation, but these warnings were either ignored or downplayed by Netanyahu’s government. Israeli intelligence did not adequately interpret or act upon the signs of an impending attack, leaving the country vulnerable to Hamas’s surprise assault.

Netanyahu’s Calculated, Self-Focused Strategy

Netanyahu pursued a strategy to manage, rather than eliminate, Hamas, seeing it as a counterbalance to the more moderate Palestinian Authority. By allowing Qatari funds to flow into Gaza and avoiding efforts to promote Palestinian reconciliation, Netanyahu effectively ensured that Hamas would remain a powerful and distinct entity, separate from the PA. This approach helped avoid a unified Palestinian front, which could have posed a more formidable challenge in negotiations or resistance.

However, this strategy was primarily driven by Netanyahu’s political interests:

1. No Clear Strategic Plan: Netanyahu’s approach lacked a coherent long-term strategy for dealing with Hamas. His actions seemed aimed at maintaining political power and avoiding domestic challenges rather than focusing on security policy.
2. Empowering Hamas to Undermine the PA: By weakening the PA, Netanyahu could present himself domestically as tough on Palestinian negotiations while indirectly strengthening Hamas, allowing him to deflect calls for a two-state solution.
3. Underestimating Hamas’s Threat: Netanyahu assumed Hamas could be contained through periodic military actions, leading to complacency and inadequate responses to the threat posed by the group.
4. Heavy-Handed Tactics for Political Gain: Netanyahu’s aggressive military approach—using destructive weapons like 2,000-pound bombs in densely populated areas of Gaza—was intended to show strength and maintain political support. However, this led to a humanitarian crisis, strained international relations, and increased global condemnation.

Netanyahu’s Blunders in War Execution

Netanyahu’s execution of the war in Gaza has been marked by significant mistakes that have hindered Israel’s stated goals of defeating Hamas:

1. Lack of Clear Military Objectives: Netanyahu has been criticized for not clearly articulating the goals of the military operation in Gaza, causing confusion within the Israeli military and the public.
2. Prolonging the Conflict: Critics argue that Netanyahu is prolonging the conflict to maintain his political power and avoid domestic controversies like corruption trials and public discontent over judicial reforms.
3. Ineffective Military Tactics: Despite heavy firepower, Netanyahu’s strategy has not significantly degraded Hamas’s capabilities. Hamas has shown resilience, quickly rebuilding its infrastructure and continuing attacks.
4. Failure to Cut Off Supply Lines: Netanyahu’s strategy has focused more on physical infrastructure than on cutting off Hamas’s supply lines and funding sources, allowing Hamas to replenish its arsenal quickly.
5. Overreliance on Heavy Weaponry: The use of heavy bombs and other destructive tactics has caused significant civilian casualties and infrastructure damage, drawing sharp international criticism and eroding diplomatic support.
6. Ignoring Humanitarian Considerations: Failing to balance military objectives with humanitarian concerns has contributed to a severe crisis in Gaza, giving Hamas propaganda material and undermining Israel’s broader strategic goals.

Hamas Likely to Survive the Conflict Relatively Intact

Despite Israel’s intense military campaign, Hamas is likely to survive the conflict relatively intact. The group’s ability to quickly rebuild its infrastructure, maintain control over Gaza, and continue to rally support by positioning itself as a defender against Israeli aggression suggests it will endure, even if weakened.

• Hamas’s Resilience: Hamas has repeatedly recovered from Israeli military offensives, rebuilt networks, and continued operations. Its deep entrenchment in Gaza, access to funding, and tactics make it difficult to eliminate.
• Gazan Population Pays the Price: As in previous conflicts, Gazan civilians suffer the most. The destruction and lack of aid lead to widespread suffering, while Hamas leadership remains intact and potentially gains support due to perceived resistance. Sinwar’s use of Gazan suffering as a tool for international propaganda remains a key part of his strategy.

Sinwar’s Responsibility for Hostage Murders

The recent execution of six hostages by Hamas is a stark illustration of Sinwar’s brutality. He ordered the capture and execution of Israeli civilians, using them as bargaining chips in a high-stakes game of psychological warfare against Israel. This act reinforces Sinwar’s ruthless image as a leader willing to sacrifice lives to further Hamas’s goals.

Many Israelis, however, feel that Netanyahu’s refusal to negotiate with Hamas represented a lost opportunity to secure the hostages’ release and potentially save their lives. Critics argue that his focus on a purely military response, rather than exploring diplomatic options, may have limited the chances of a peaceful resolution to the hostage situation.

Warnings from President Biden

President Joe Biden has repeatedly warned Netanyahu about the potential consequences of his strategies:

1. Calls for Restraint: Biden urged Netanyahu to exercise restraint and avoid actions that would cause significant civilian casualties, which could undermine international support for Israel.
2. Warning Against Escalation: Biden cautioned against escalating the conflict further, warning it could destabilize the region and draw in other actors, such as Hezbollah or Iran.
3. Humanitarian Concerns: Biden expressed concern over the growing humanitarian crisis, warning that continued bombardment could worsen the situation.
4. Encouraging Diplomacy: Biden pushed Netanyahu to consider diplomatic options, warning that Israel’s long-term security depends on a viable political solution.
5. Rebuilding International Support: Biden emphasized the need for Israel to rebuild international cooperation, strained by Netanyahu’s tactics.

October 7th and Beyond: Two Leaders, One Catastrophe

The paths of Sinwar and Netanyahu converged violently on October 7th, resulting in unprecedented bloodshed and a renewed cycle of conflict. Both leaders, driven by ambition and self-focused strategies, set the stage for this tragic escalation.

Sinwar’s Calculated Brutality

Sinwar’s decision to launch a brutal attack on Israeli civilians was a clear statement of his willingness to escalate the conflict to achieve his goals, regardless of the human cost.

Netanyahu’s Strategy Focused on Personal Survival

Netanyahu’s approach to managing Hamas through containment rather than eradication backfired dramatically. The October 7th attack exposed his strategy’s flaws, highlighting his lack of a broader strategic vision and his reactive and heavy-handed tactics.

A Dangerous Path Forward

The October 7th attack and the subsequent war underscore the perilous dynamics between two leaders who have placed their political survival and ambitions above the pursuit of peace and stability. As the conflict drags on, the region remains on a precarious edge, with no clear signs of an Israeli victory or a shift toward a peaceful resolution.