Yesterday, Israeli negotiators arrived in Cairo to discuss another exchange of Israeli hostages for imprisoned Palestinian terrorists. But who exactly speaks for Hamas in its conversations with Egyptian intermediaries? Is it Yahya Sinwar, the architect of the October 7 attacks who has ruled Gaza since 2017? Or is it Ismail Haniyeh, the chairman of the Qatar-based Hamas politburo? Although Haniyeh and Sinwar share a commitment to terrorism, the destruction of Israel, and the slaughter of Jews, they have not always seen eye-to-eye about tactics. Matthew Levitt, in conversation with Dan Senor, explains the opaque governance structure of the jihadist group, its personalities, its present internal divisions, and its relations with its various patrons. (Audio, 45 minutes.)

Israel’s goals of freeing the hostages and defeating Hamas (the latter necessary to prevent further hostage taking) are to some extent contradictory, since Yahya Sinwar, the ruler of the Gaza Strip, will only turn over hostages in exchange for concessions. But Jacob Nagel remains convinced that Jerusalem should continue to pursue both goals:

Only consistent military pressure on Hamas can lead to the hostages’ release, either through negotiation or military operation. There’s little chance of reaching a deal with Hamas using current approaches, including the latest Egyptian proposal. Israeli concessions would only encourage further pressure from Hamas.

There is no incentive for Hamas to agree to a deal, especially since it believes it can achieve its full objectives without one. Unfortunately, many contribute to this belief, mainly from outside of Israel, but also from within.

Recent months saw Israel mistakenly refraining from entering Rafah for several reasons. Initially, the main [reason was to try] to negotiate a deal with Hamas. However, as it became clear that Hamas was uninterested, and its only goal was to return to its situation before October 7—where Hamas and its leadership control Gaza, Israeli forces are out, and there are no changes in the borders—the deal didn’t mature.