The future of Hamas and its physical presence, not in Qatar or Turkey but on the ground in Gaza, is under fresh scrutiny amid Israeli threats to erase the movement, which has been plunged into crisis after an Israeli strike last week targeting its political leadership in the Qatari capital Doha.
For Hamas, a long branch of the global Muslim Brotherhood, the attack marks a new chapter in the struggle for its continued existence, this time striking at its role as a governing movement.
For many observers, the Israeli strike on Hamas’ political leadership represented a major escalation: it targeted not only Hamas operatives in Qatar but also signalled an attempt to undermine the movement’s presence overall, including within the Palestinian Territories.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has repeatedly threatened to remove the group from existence, took what analysts describe as decisive steps towards that aim by striking Hamas leaders in a country that maintains cordial ties with Israel.
The move, they say, constitutes a qualitative development in Israel’s campaign against Hamas.
Many believe the movement now faces a precarious position. Its ability to withstand threats from Netanyahu, who has vowed to hunt down its leaders wherever they are, is in question.
Equally worrying for Hamas is talk about a post-war political settlement following the recent US initiative on Gaza, which made no provision for a role for the movement once hostilities end.
That plan, and comments by US President Donald Trump linked to it, signalled that Hamas would have no presence or representation after the war.
The drive to marginalise or eliminate Hamas is not confined to the United States and Israel. Several influential European states including Britain and France and countries that say they intend to recognise a Palestinian state have set a clear condition: Hamas must not be part of that state.
The demand is also not limited to Europe as some Arab states have also attached similar conditions to Hamas’ political future.
A clear indication that Israel intends to continue targeting Hamas in order to destroy it came from Washington in remarks by Israel’s ambassador to the United States. He said that Tel Aviv had a partner of unprecedented scale in the Trump administration, which has openly supported Israel’s efforts to crush Hamas, rule Gaza, and eliminate Hamas leaders wherever they are found.
Israel’s Ambassador to Washington Ya’hiyeil Leiter, threatened renewed strikes on Hamas leaders hours after the Israeli attack on Doha. The US network Fox News quoted Leiter as saying that “if we do not finish off Hamas’ leadership this time, we will get to them next time.”
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is changing the face of the Middle East. We have succeeded in weakening Hizbullah, Hamas, the Houthis and all forces allied with Iran,” he said.
“We are now open to criticism, but Israel will become better and the region will be in a better state because we removed the enemies of peace and the enemies of Western civilisation.”
ATTACK ON QATAR: Qatar launched a diplomatic campaign against Israel following the strike on Doha and the targeting of Hamas’ political leaders.
Arab media sources say that Qatar is reassessing its mediation role between Israel and Hamas and reviewing whether to continue hosting Hamas offices and leaders, a presence it previously maintained in response to US and Israeli requests.
That stance was reflected in comments by Qatar’s prime minister, who said the country is re-evaluating everything related to mediation and Hamas’ presence in Qatar. That could leave Hamas facing a fresh dilemma: the loss of a refuge it has relied on for years.
In the aftermath of the Doha strike, political analyst Rasim Ubaydat from Jerusalem said that after the failed assassination attempt on Hamas leaders, who had been in Doha with US and Israeli approval, Hamas is now considering leaving Qatar, which is no longer secure despite prior arrangements.
He said the movement’s likely destination is Egypt and that talks are underway between Hamas leaders and Cairo to secure a presence in Cairo with security guarantees.
Ubaydat added that Egypt is holding discussions with the US administration to arrange protection so Hamas leaders are not targeted, explaining that “Egypt is not Qatar.”
Egypt is a large and powerful state with a peace treaty with Israel, and it will not permit Israel to undermine its sovereignty or national dignity, Ubaydat said. It is also seeking security arrangements rather than the kind of exposed hosting seen in Qatar.
This dynamic has prompted some Hamas figures to consider Tehran as an alternative because other Arab states, whether Iraq, Lebanon or Jordan, will not accept their presence. Yet, the prospect of going to Tehran is complicated by the lack of safe havens there, and the earlier assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh is cited as the clearest warning.
Ubaydat said the likelihood of Hamas leaders leaving Qatar has increased because of Israel’s belligerence and its declared intent to kill them, coupled with Israel’s efforts to reshape the region by punishing any organisation or state that deviates from what the US and Israel want.
He noted that Qatar is an US ally with investments in the US and an active regional role on America’s behalf, but that has not granted it immunity from Israeli action. Washington, he argued, is becoming more ruthless in its pursuit of a new international order.
Ubaydat added that Egypt has not been immune to Israeli accusations and criticism from the Trump administration, and the Egyptian army could become a target in future phases, for example over the alleged deployment of forces in Sinai that might violate peace agreements.
He stressed, though, that Egypt has refused to accept the collective displacement of the Palestinians, which irritates the US and Israel, even though they do not want the presence of Hamas leaders in Cairo to become a lever to destabilise Egypt.
On the US initiative, Ubaydat said Hamas had agreed to relinquish authority in the past, as it did when Egypt proposed a ceasefire in the war on Gaza, but it refuses to surrender weapons before a Palestinian state is established.
That stance, he said, is unacceptable to Washington and Israel and places the movement in a position of confrontation and targeting.
FUTURE OF HAMAS: Commenting on Hamas’ future, Palestinian political analyst Najib Faraj said military force and targeted killings have never succeeded in eradicating revolutionary organisations in the past.
He pointed to Israel’s failure to eliminate the Palestinian organisation Fatah in the 1980s despite painful military blows and the assassination of its leaders. The organisation persisted because it represented an idea, he said.
Israel’s leaders had once sought to kill Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, he added, but ultimately they were forced to negotiate with him. Faraj also cited the 20-year conflict in Afghanistan, which ended with the US handing the country over to the Taliban.
Faraj said that every time Israel targets Hamas leaders, the movement’s popularity grows, regardless of public disquiet about Hamas policies. He argued that popular momentum behind a movement rises when it is attacked, which ultimately harms Israel and the United States, which seek to frame the conflict as being with Hamas rather than with the Palestinian people pursuing independence from occupation.
He said the root problem is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not a single organisation, and that Israel must recognise Palestinian rights.
Faraj believes Hamas will remain part of Palestinian society. Even if Israel and the US attempt to erase it in a so-called “day after” scenario, the movement has deep roots and popular bases, not merely military capabilities.
He said that US and Israeli plans will likely fail and warned that any arrangement that does not address the core problem of the Israeli occupation will not resolve the issue. Even if an administrative committee separate from the Palestinian political leadership in Fatah or Hamas is formed, the problem will persist, and Israel will find itself confronting the Palestinian people again.
Faraj said Hamas could be forced to leave power in Gaza on the day after the war ends, but it will remain influential through its grassroots support and public backing. It may reappear in different forms so long as it has not formally dissolved itself, and if there is no political solution that establishes a Palestinian state, Hamas will return in alternative shapes.
Analyst Raafat Al-Jawabreh said Israeli society as reflected in the Hebrew media, including in left-leaning outlets, largely rejoiced before the full details of the assassination attempts in Doha had emerged.
Journalists and commentators openly celebrated, saying the attempted killings had been desired and awaited, treating them as settling a score. They pointed to the leadership that had “bowed in prayer” on 7 October 2023 and argued that those figures deserved to be killed, a stance that reflects an Israeli determination to eliminate Hamas as a resistance force.
Al-Jawabreh said the Israeli media did not hold back criticism of the strike despite Qatar’s status as a partner in mediation and a bridge to the United States and other regional actors.
Israelis, he said, considered eliminating Hamas and its leaders more important than preserving relations with Doha because Netanyahu and his allies believe ending the war would mark the beginning of the end for their domestic political power.
On public opinion in Israel regarding Hamas’ continued rule, Al-Jawabreh cited a recent poll showing that between 51 and 56 per cent of Israelis are indifferent to whether Hamas remains in power and consider it irrelevant to their lives. Yet, the Israeli media are united in insisting there should be no Hamas rule in Gaza and no weapons in the enclave.
He added that Israeli journalists, former chiefs of staff, and senior military figures have stressed that Hamas is an idea and cannot be eliminated.
Regarding the day after the war and governance in Gaza, he said that Hamas has shown flexibility. While the topic is not part of the current prisoner-exchange negotiations, which cover the release of living and deceased Israeli captives in Gaza in return for Palestinian prisoners and the withdrawal of Israeli forces, discussions are taking place with mediator states about post-war arrangements.
Al-Jawabreh said Hamas has expressed willingness to refrain from taking part in a technocratic governing body that would oversee Gaza’s reconstruction, although it insists it will not surrender its weapons.
He questioned whether Israel would accept a government or authority that excludes Hamas or similar organisations while leaving the movement intact in Gaza, something he believes would be unacceptable for Netanyahu’s government because it would leave open a major political charge against him.
On the US proposal, Al-Jawabreh said the clause on withdrawal from certain places, linked to how effectively any new authority in Gaza can limit Hamas’ weapons and influence, had alarmed Hamas and other resistance groups.
That clause, he argued, gives Israel latitude during implementation to determine where and when to withdraw, based on security assessments that might not be objective.
Hamas has demanded clarity: withdrawal should mean actual, verifiable withdrawal. Arrangements inside Gaza are a separate issue to be negotiated with Palestinian factions, the Palestinian Authority (PA), and neighbouring states from Cairo to Doha and Amman.
Al-Jawabreh believes Israeli policymakers understand that Hamas cannot be completely eliminated. He said that the image of victory that Netanyahu has promoted, involving the eradication of Hamas, is one Israeli media outlets now regard as unattainable.
Some Israeli commentators have asked Netanyahu when he will declare Hamas to have been destroyed. Is it when the last Hamas member is killed in Gaza, the West Bank, or anywhere else in the world? They describe such rhetoric as being used by Netanyahu to prolong the war while recognising that Hamas will persist.
Al-Jawabreh added that Israeli military sources have concluded that it is impossible to destroy Hamas or to secure the return of captives by force. Military analysts and chiefs of staff have also warned Netanyahu that entering Gaza could spell death for the Israelis held there.
Nonetheless, Netanyahu is manoeuvring to distance himself from the prisoner-exchange deal in pursuit of a symbolic victory.
Uncertainty about what this will look like may explain why an attempt to assassinate six Hamas leaders, including the head of the political bureau and key negotiators, was viewed by Netanyahu as a potential shock that might force Hamas to concede demands it has not accepted before.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 18 September, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: