Following the progress of the war that broke out last October and with ceasefire negotiations still ongoing, the assassination of the head of the political wing of Hamas, Ismail Haniyaon July 31 and the change of baton in the leadership of the organization give the trigger to attempt an assessment of the way in which Hamas has managed its image communicatively, politically and diplomatically.

Although Hamas is classified by the State Department and the EU as an international terrorist organization, Ismail Haniya has slowly and systematically implemented a communicatively and practically intelligent model of “dual representation”, effectively separating the political arm of Hamas from its military counterpart. At the same time, Hamas has chosen to communicate with the Arab and international media through multiple representatives for the sake of flexibility.

The “dual representation” model

This clever communication tactic of the “Khaniya era” combined with the existence of a de facto administrative machine, which has been determining the fate of Gaza since 2007, produced, among other things, the following practical result: When the war began, no one questioned – including the US – that Hamas should become an interlocutor in the negotiations for the formation of any “next day”. Thus, the Hamas organization found itself talking officially, directly or not – but as equals! – with top secret service officials of important countries.

Regardless of the final outcome of the war, this particular de facto upgrade of Hamas sets a very interesting precedent, at a time when the international community has never before thought to treat its counterpart Islamist organizations, Al-Qaeda among them, with such leniency. or the Islamic State. Furthermore, the success of the “dual representation” model of Haniya’s inspiration is demonstrated even after his death.

The “new” Hamas of Sinwar

Although Hamas officially declared that it would not take part in the Doha talks, in reality it participated from afar and ‘as if it were present’, since the implementation of whatever might have been agreed upon would have to be subject to its own acceptance. And despite the optimistic mood ahead of next week’s talks in Cairo, it may be time to state clearly that an important diplomatic precedent is currently being set before us with unpredictable future implications, which we may see when another armed organization or unrecognized administrative entity is tempted to measure its forces on the occasion of one of the many foci of military tension around the world.

The question of how the “new” Hamas under Yahya Shinuar will manage the successful legacy of the “Hanya era” remains unanswered so far. Whatever the decision is, it is practically difficult to implement as long as Sinwar is under persecution, practically unable to manage the international relations that the “Khaniya era” has cultivated from 2007 to the present.

What is happening with the Palestinian Authority?

On the other hand, after the war broke out, international diplomacy and world public opinion seemed to forget that the only internationally recognized, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people is the Palestinian Authority. It is based in Ramallah, maintains a statutory presence at the UN and is a member of the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. It has a diplomatic service and operates embassies. Finally, it also has a President, Mahmoud Abbas, who was not even invited to the Doha conference, nor has it been hinted that he will be invited to the upcoming Cairo meetings.

It is a fact that since the beginning of the war, if we exclude the extensive coverage of the events by the official media of the Palestinian Authority, its political leadership has kept a relatively low tone. In fact, there were individual public interventions by its officials, who criticized Hamas, accusing it of responsibility for the humanitarian disaster, as a result of the events of October 7. On the other hand, Israel denied from the beginning any involvement of the Palestinian Authority in the truce negotiations. At the same time, however, no mediator insisted otherwise.

Abbas’s reminders to the international community

The end of the “Khaniya era” and its looming unfilled void seem to have been an occasion for President Abbas to remind the international community that he continues to be the sole legal representative of the Palestinians. It is no coincidence that just twenty-four hours after the Haniya assassination, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt behind the scenes brought back to the table the possibility of the Ramallah regime taking control of the “Philadelphia Axis” on the Gaza-Egypt border, a possibility that Israel rejected from the start. This was followed by the recent visits of Mahmoud Abbas to Moscow (13-14/8) and Ankara (14-15/8), emphasizing that the Gaza Strip is an integral part of the Palestinian Authority, even inviting the Turkish President and G.G. . of the UN to visit Gaza with him, thereby legitimizing the Palestinian Authority’s demand for a specific role in the “day after”.

On the other hand, the architects of the “Biden frame” truce, for now at least, seem to have a different view.