Who benefits from prolonging the war in Gaza?

The anniversary of the Oct. 7 Hamas massacres is approaching. As hopes fade for a cease-fire and hostage deal, it is worth considering who benefits from continued conflict: Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former President Donald Trump and Iran.

In May, I argued that Netanyahu and Sinwar had common interests in prolonging the war. Four months later, that central thesis holds up, although some tactical details have changed. Notwithstanding the seemingly indefatigable attempts of the Biden administration, Egypt and Qatar, there is still no end in sight.

Many, especially in Israel, put the blame on Netanyahu for moving the goal posts and his belated insistence on maintaining control of the Philadelphi corridor. But we cannot ignore that Yahya Sinwar also has no desire to reach a cease-fire or end the war.

In the aftermath of the Israeli assassination of Ismail Haniya in Tehran on July 31 — for which there has yet to be a forceful response by Iran against Israel or softer Jewish targets — Sinwar has become the uncontested political and military leader of Hamas. Yet he remains in hiding and cannot emerge. Sinwar knows his time is marked. Israel seeks to assassinate him and Sinwar could easily become the target of an Arab country — perhaps Egypt, the UAE or Saudi Arabia, which notably have not supported Hamas in this war because they see the threat Iran poses.

Although a cease-fire would be a welcome respite for Gazans, and a prisoner exchange would ease the small but growing whisperings against Hamas, it could also lead to a challenge to Sinwar’s leadership, especially in the West Bank. Sinwar, however, gets nothing from a deal and will have to remain in hiding.

We tend to forget that Hamas is driven by a religious ideology anathema to Western liberalism. As such, Sinwar has little compunction about sacrificing thousands in the name of the “cause.”

At the same time, one could argue that Hamas is winning the war. Israel’s global reputation is in tatters. The Gaza Envelope bordering the Strip remains emptied of Israelis and Hezbollah shelling in the north has kept over 100,000 from their homes.

The personal cost of keeping hundreds of thousands of reserve soldiers on duty is driving Israeli families and businesses to ruin. Ratings agencies have downgraded Israel’s sovereign credit rating, along with the ratings of the country’s four largest banks, which will cause higher borrowing costs even after the war. The conflict is said to cost Israel about $68 billion.

Like Sinwar, Netanyahu also has no desire to see the war end. He knows that if he makes a deal, the far-right nationalists in his coalition — notably Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich — will bolt the cabinet. The two ultra-Orthodox parties — Shas and United Torah Judaism — are much more pliable with regard to both a hostage deal and a cease-fire and would vote in favor.

Netanyahu, however, knows that his political life is over if a deal is made, because the fall of the government would require new elections. Therefore, he has little incentive to make a deal and is prepared to risk the lives of the Israeli hostages — even while truly existential threats such as Iran continue to loom.

Most Israeli strategists find laughable Netanyahu’s contention that giving up control of the Philadelphi corridor for up to 42 days would be a threat to Israel’s existence. Former Shin Bet director Nadav Argaman, who was appointed by Netanyahu, called Netanyahu’s speech outlining the Philadelphi argument the “greatest act in town.” Argaman also said the Netanyahu government was a catastrophe and that Netanyahu was being guided by pure political motivations.

American politics are also part of Netanyahu’s desire not to make a hostage or cease-fire deal now. Netanyahu is playing for time, hoping that Trump wins the presidential election; a cease-fire or hostage deal, on the other hand, would presumably work to the benefit of Kamala Harris. Netanyahu believes that he will be able to act without pressure from a Trump administration. That may or may not be the case, but it is certainly a part of Netanyahu’s thinking.

Lastly, Iran’s “axis of resistance” — Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and militias in Iraq — has proven durable and effective. Iran has also thus far staved off the formation of a Sunni-Israeli coalition to challenge Iranian power.

Tip O’Neil once said that all politics is local. In the Gaza conflict, it might be said that all politics are personal. It is a pity.

Jonathan D. Strum is an international lawyer and businessman based in Washington and the Middle East. From 1991 to 2005, he was an adjunct professor of the Israeli Legal System at Georgetown University Law Center.