In Iran's Orbit After All: What Hamas' Choice of Khalil al-Hayya as Leader Means

A senior official from one of the Palestinian factions keeping contact with Hamas told Haaretz that the election signals the continuation of an aggressive posture and opposition to any real compromise with Israel

July 20th, 22PM July 21st, 19PM

The appointment of Khalil al-Hayya as Hamas' political leader reflects the current power balance within the group, and above all, its desire to demonstrate continuity and competence.

Nearly three years after the October 7 massacre and all of its consequences, the fact that Hamas held elections at a time when it is being hit on all sides signals that its institutions are still functioning.

The main message emerging from the election is that despite the catastrophe in the Gaza Strip, Hamas still relies on its leadership in Gaza rather than on the leadership in the diaspora. Al-Hayya's campaign against Khaled Meshal expressed that orientation.

The election campaign lasted a few months, and Monday's announcement about al-Hayya's appointment came as a surprise. The announcement of Yahya Sinwar's official replacement had been expected during Ramadan (February-March). However, it was repeatedly postponed due to regional developments, the Iran war and uncertainty about Gaza's future.

The close race – al-Hayya's 35 votes to Meshal's 34, as Saudi news channel Al-Sharq reported – indicates that the internal dispute within Hamas is far from over. Meshal's camp still has great power in Hamas, and the battle over its political future will continue despite al-Hayya's selection.

Still, a Hamas political official living in Gaza said that the election of al-Hayya is largely a victory for the local Gaza faction over the diaspora faction.

Although al-Hayya lives in Qatar, he is strongly associated with the Gaza leadership. He was Sinwar's deputy in Gaza. After Ismail Haniyeh was killed in Tehran in July 2024, al-Hayya also served as deputy to Sinwar.

Al-Hayya was also one of the central figures in managing the ties between the political leadership and the leadership on the ground. He headed the indirect negotiations with Israel for Hamas while keeping close contact with the military leadership in Gaza. During the war, he became the key figure in trying to bridge between the group's political demands and the military wing's positions.

In contrast, Meshal, a former political bureau chief, is the most prominent representative of the diaspora leadership. He is associated with what is considered the most pragmatic approach, seeking to expand the group's diplomatic horizons, promoting internal Palestinian reconciliation, reducing dependence on Iran and bolstering ties with Arab countries, namely Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

There is criticism of Meshal within Hamas, mainly around his positions about the October 7 attack and what came afterward. Hamas officials said he wasn't a partner to the decision to go forward with the operation. They say group members perceived some of his statements as reservations about the attack, which drew it into an unprecedented confrontation with Israel.

Still, Hamas representatives say the two are committed to the idea of resistance and struggle with Israel. The main difference between them is not the goal itself, but the means they use to pursue it. Al-Hayya represents those who want to continue the line of armed struggle and to rely on the Iranian axis. Meshal represents those who want to pursue the diplomatic track and regional ties. Al-Hayya's victory indicates that the voices preferring the status quo won over the voices of change.

A senior official from one of the Palestinian factions in contact with Hamas told Haaretz that the choice of al-Hayya signals continuation of an aggressive posture and opposition to any real compromise. This line pertains especially to everything regarding arms and disbanding the military wing as part of the second stage of the U.S. plan for Gaza's future.

He said from the perspective of Hamas, al-Hayya's victory is a declaration that the group will remain obstinate in its demands and won't adopt an approach that would be interpreted as surrendering to external pressures.

At the same time, the election also reflects the group's regional direction. Al-Hayya is more associated with Iran than with the anti-Shi'ite axis. Still, this issue is expected to become clearer mainly after the Iran war ends, and its regional impact becomes apparent – particularly regarding ties with states like Qatar and Turkey.

On the Palestinian front, particularly among Hamas activists on the ground, it hasn't been ruled out that the appointment is temporary. Gaza's future and the question of who will rule it remain unclear, as Hamas will have to operate in a new reality.

In such a situation, al-Hayya will likely be the man to lead Hamas during the coming decisive stage. That period includes further negotiations, managing its conflict with Israel and the struggle for its status in Gaza. However, he won't necessarily be the leader to shape the movement's long-term future.

In the end, al-Hayya's election is a vote for continuity: for the Gaza leadership's dominance, for preserving Sinwar's line and for the man who knows from up close the military front and the political system.

His election also indicates that Hamas is at a historic crossroads – between survival and change, and between continuing the armed struggle and the need to deal with the question of the future, including control of Gaza and the place of Hamas on the Palestinian and regional stages.