How will Egypt be affected by Haniyeh's assassination?
The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, 61, the head of the political bureau of the Islamic Resistance Movement, is a huge loss for several parties, most notably the Palestinian resistance. The loss of the former prime minister of the Palestinian Authority — Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, remember — is a painful blow.
Haniyeh’s absence from the political scene is a turning point in the ongoing war between Hamas and the Israeli occupation government. It carries with it serious repercussions after 10 months of the Gaza war, which has killed around 40,000 Palestinians, mainly women and children, and wounded 90,000 more.
The regional parties mediating in the Palestinian-Israeli issue, notably Egypt and Qatar, will face a heavier burden with Haniyeh no longer around. He was the possessor of the secrets of the ongoing negotiation process regarding the exchange of prisoners and a ceasefire in Gaza.
It seems clear that Egypt is trying to stay in the middle. It issued an official statement through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemning the Israeli escalation, and warning of the consequences of an assassination policy, violating the sovereignty of other countries and fuelling conflict in the region. The statement made no reference to the person who was assassinated, and it did not offer condolences to the Palestinian people for the loss of Haniyeh.
There were no signs of mourning over the loss of the main interlocutor with the Egyptian mediators regarding the truce talks in Gaza.
Imams of Egypt’s mosques were not allowed to perform absentee funeral prayers for Haniyeh.
Signs of the sadness in mourning him, however, were all over Egyptian social media.
In a gesture that lacked civility, the Egyptian media continued its daily coverage of the El Alamein Festival, sporting events and other news. It dealt with the event in a passing manner that is not commensurate with the sensitivity of the situation or the seriousness of its repercussions on the region, especially given the assassination of Hezbollah’s Fuad Shukr, the other man in the Israeli cross hairs on what was described as the night of assassinations last week.
The only exception to this came from Egypt’s top Sunni scholarly institution of Al-Azhar University, which condemned the assassination, describing it as a “heinous crime committed by the treacherous occupying entity” and stressing that, “The steadfast martyr spent his life defending his land and the cause of the Arabs and Muslims, the cause of free and steadfast Palestine.” It added that, “These assassinations will not undermine the resolve of the steadfast Palestinian people, who have made and are still making great sacrifices to regain their rights to establish an independent State of Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital.”
Well-known academic Mustafa Kamel Al-Sayyid, professor of political science at Cairo University, criticised the official Egyptian response to the assassination. “I am extremely saddened by this extreme reserve with which the authorities of our country have dealt with the martyrdom of Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas Political Bureau,” wrote Al-Sayyid on Facebook. “They offered no condolences to the Palestinian people for his death, while he was the negotiator for a peaceful settlement of the brutal war in Gaza. There was no official participation in his funeral in Tehran or Doha. The Ministry of Foreign Affair’s statement about the series of Israeli assassinations befits the Secretary-General of the United Nations, not a country that is adjacent to this brutal war and which is witnessing violations of binding agreements signed with it, and who is seen by Palestinians and Arabs as a protector.” He then asked: “Is this how the Egyptian authorities understand the role of a mediator? Do they believe they need to be completely devoid of emotions, even legitimate ones, that can be useful in strengthening relations with the Palestinian negotiating party?”
Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdel Ati was scheduled to visit Qatar after attending the inauguration ceremony of the Iranian president in Tehran, Masoud Pezeshkian. The visit was planned to discuss the results of the latest Gaza negotiations, but Haniyeh’s assassination in Iran — he also attended the inauguration — cast a shadow over the effectiveness of meeting. “How can negotiations take place where one party kills the person negotiating with it at the time of negotiations?” asked Qatari Foreign Minister Mohammed Bin Abdul Rahman Al-Thani.
Cairo realises that efforts to negotiate an end to the Gaza war have suffered a fatal blow with the killing of Haniyeh, which may hinder its mediation on a prisoner exchange deal between the two sides.
The killing of its chief negotiator may also push the Palestinian resistance to harden its terms.
There is no doubt that security and intelligence assessments classed Haniyeh as a moderate person, a diplomat with a political and popular presence. He was able to forge close relationships with rulers, presidents and foreign and intelligence ministers in several countries.
Haniyeh’s diplomatic skills played a major role in alleviating the tension between the movement and Cairo, rather than widening the gap between the two, launching a different phase of security and political cooperation and coordination. There were years of tension between Hamas and Egypt due to accusations that the movement threatened the latter’s national security, despite Hamas denials. The accusations stemmed from the ideological background that connected the movement intellectually to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is banned by the Egyptian authorities. Nevertheless, in June, Egyptian Intelligence Director Abbas Kamel made a phone call to Haniyeh, in which he discussed the course of the ongoing negotiations aimed at reaching a long-term ceasefire agreement in Gaza, according to an official Hamas statement.
Cairo is cautious about the identity of Haniyeh’s successor. The late Hamas leader had a deep appreciation of Egypt’s role and repeatedly praised the official position of rejecting the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza to Sinai. He also avoided criticism of the political leadership in Egypt, which means that Cairo may have to start assessing its political and strategic losses after his assassination.
Egyptian security and intelligence services are also likely to start reviewing the security protocols related to Hamas delegations that visit Cairo, for fear that one of its members could be assassinated on Egyptian soil. That would be a great embarrassment for Cairo.
According to Egyptian political researcher Mohamed Annan, Haniyeh was the most moderate voice within the movement. He pointed out that the resistance completed its most successful deals under his leadership, a reference to the Gilad Shalit deal on 18 October, 2011, which saw 1,027 Palestinian prisoners exchanged for the Israeli soldier.
In the absence of Haniyeh, said Annan, the movement will have lost, to some extent, its most moderate voice.
This is likely to be reflected on the course of the negotiations in general, and on the Egyptian role in particular, which has become a party to what’s going on and not just a mediator.
To complicate matters further, Haniyeh’s assassination will strengthen the extremist front within Hamas, as it represents the ultimate provocation for Al-Qassam Brigades. The movement’s military wing will not accept new concessions regarding the hostage issue and may retaliate after the political murder.
Since its founding in 1987, Hamas has had many experienced leaders. The Shura (Consultative) Council, its highest legislative body, includes 50 members representing the movement inside the occupied Palestinian territories and countries in which the movement has an official presence. It holds elections every four years for membership of the Shura Council and political bureau, who then elect the head of the bureau and his deputy. The last two postholders, Haniyeh and Saleh Al-Arouri, have both been assassinated.
The list of candidates to succeed Haniyeh is headed by Khaled Meshaal, the former head of the political bureau; Khalil Al-Hayya, deputy head of the movement in Gaza; former deputy head of the political bureau Mousa Abu Marzook; Yahya Al-Sinwar, the head of the movement in the Gaza Strip; Zaher Jabareen, the leader of the movement in the West Bank; and senior officials Nizar Abu Ramadan, Muhammad Nazzal and Osama Hamdan.
The head of the movement’s political bureau is often chosen from leaders based outside of occupied Palestine, to facilitate easier travel and the fulfilment of diplomatic duties, and ensure that he is not under the heavy hand of the Israeli occupation.
In a statement on Saturday, Hamas announced that it has launched a broad consultation process across its leadership and Shura institutions to choose the new head. It stressed that it has effective mechanisms in place to continue resistance in these most difficult of circumstances.
Abdel-Ghani Al-Shami, an expert on Palestinian affairs, suggested to me that Meshaal may be selected to finish Haniyeh’s term in office, which was scheduled to end in 2025. He pointed out that Hamas maintains a complex hierarchical system that allows it to fill vacant leadership positions in both the political and military wings.
However, Annan expressed his fears that, in the event of Meshaal’s appointment, relations between Egypt and Hamas will see a stalemate due to his previous criticism of Egypt and some Arab countries. Meshaal lacks the diplomatic approach and flexibility that Haniyeh had towards the Egyptian position.
In any case, with the death of Haniyeh, Egypt has certainly lost one of the bridges of peace linking Hamas and Cairo, whatever other points of tension were between them. The full repercussions of his enforced absence will become clear to Cairo and other regional capitals in the weeks and months ahead.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.