Who Makes Decisions in Hamas and the Israeli Government?

Al-Ittihad, UAE, March 8

The comparison between decision-making within the Hamas movement and the Israeli government, particularly in the context of negotiations surrounding the conflict in Gaza, is a complex task. The Israeli government operates within a multifaceted system that involves political, strategic, and security decision-making apparatuses. Despite the establishment of a war cabinet to oversee strategic decisions, there is a significant overlap in positions and orientations among various government bodies, making it challenging to unify visions. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu navigates through intersecting circles and intertwined spaces, empowering negotiators beyond security and strategic realms to achieve political goals. The voting mechanisms in the war cabinet differ from those in the broader government, adding layers of complexity to decision-making. Decision-making within the Hamas movement is similarly intricate, with the political office playing a central role in both internal and external affairs. The internal circle, especially figures like Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Marwan Issa, along with the military wing, shape most of the policies on the ground. The movement’s path toward a temporary cease-fire reflects the complexities it faces in aligning with broader Palestinian national action. Both the Israeli government and Hamas navigate decision-making amidst internal requirements and broader political interests. While the Israeli government seeks to maintain coalition stability, Hamas leaders maneuver within a complex network of interests and priorities. Internal and external influences shape decision-making processes, underscoring the challenges of balancing political and security considerations. Despite their differing contexts, both entities centralize decision-making, respond to pressure, and emphasize defending their respective interests. Ultimately, decision-making in both the Israeli government and Hamas movement is characterized by the presence of influential centers, competing priorities, and the need to navigate complex political landscapes. As each entity strives to protect its interests and maintain relevance, the dynamics of internal and external influences continue to impact strategic choices. —Tarek Fahmy (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)