Why Is Hamas Finally Talking About Giving Up Power?
It's certainly not because they care about the Palestinians living in Gaza
For years, Hamas’s leadership swore they would never relinquish control of Gaza. They claimed that holding power in the enclave was not just a political choice but a historic duty. Yet today, for the first time, we hear signals that they are willing to discuss stepping aside. The question is why.
The answer is a convergence of catastrophic failures. Hamas’s military capabilities in Gaza have been systematically destroyed. Its governing infrastructure has collapsed. The governments hosting its external leadership are demanding its removal. And most critically, its primary financial backer — Iran — can no longer sustain its network of proxy wars across the region. What we are witnessing is not a negotiated political transition but the terminal collapse of an organization whose leaders are now scrambling to cut personal immunity deals before their options run out entirely.
The Reality in Gaza
Inside Gaza, the devastation is total. Hamas’s military infrastructure has been systematically targeted and largely destroyed. Its ability to govern is gone. Whatever claim to legitimacy Hamas once possessed has been obliterated by the scale of suffering it brought upon the population it claimed to represent. If the decision were based purely on conditions in Gaza, one might have expected surrender months ago. But the real decision-makers are not in Gaza. They are in Doha, Istanbul, and Beirut, insulated from the destruction and calculating their own survival prospects.
The External Leadership Factor
Hamas’s most senior leaders operate from exile. Khaled Meshaal and Khalil al-Hayya are in Doha. Zaher Jabarin and Mousa Abu Marzouk split time between Qatar and Turkey. Until his assassination in early 2024, Saleh al-Arouri operated from Lebanon. These figures have long been insulated from the devastation their decisions inflicted on Gaza, creating deep friction between internal commanders who face Israeli strikes and local anger, and external politicians who move in diplomatic circles far from the rubble.
For the external leadership, control of Gaza was both an asset and a burden. It gave them legitimacy and attracted foreign patronage. But it also tied them to a humanitarian catastrophe for which they are increasingly blamed — not just by Israel and the West, but by ordinary Palestinians who see their leaders living abroad while Gaza burns.
Host Governments as Catalysts
The decisive shift came when the host countries themselves ran out of patience. Qatar has tolerated Hamas’s political bureau for years, providing office space, diplomatic cover, and a platform for negotiations. But Israel and the United States have openly demanded that Qatar expel or prosecute Hamas leaders, framing their continued presence as complicity in terrorism. The cost of hosting Hamas — in diplomatic capital, regional standing, and security risk — has become untenable.
Beyond external pressure, these governments recognize that the ongoing Gaza catastrophe is a destabilizing force across the entire Middle East. The Palestinian cause has been a lightning rod for regional tensions for decades, and the current crisis perpetuates a cycle of violence and instability that no government can afford indefinitely. Qatar, Turkey, and other regional powers see Hamas as an obstacle to finally resolving a conflict that has destabilized their region for generations. A post-Hamas Gaza, with legitimate governance and a pathway toward reconstruction, offers them an off-ramp they have long sought. They want Hamas gone not just to appease Washington or Jerusalem, but because ending this chapter of regional instability serves their own interests.
The message is clear: their hosts no longer want them, and no alternative havens are available.
The Collapse of the Patron
Beyond host government pressure lies an even more fundamental problem: Iran can no longer bankroll Hamas or sustain its broader network of proxy wars. Tehran’s regional strategy has been systematically dismantled. Hezbollah has been severely degraded in Lebanon. Iranian military assets have been struck repeatedly across Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. The logistics routes for weapons and money have been disrupted. Iran’s economy, strained under sanctions and mismanagement, cannot support the same level of external commitments it once did.
For years, Hamas relied on Iranian funding to maintain its military capabilities, pay salaries, and sustain the patronage networks that kept it in power. That funding pipeline has dried up. Without it, Hamas cannot rebuild what has been destroyed in Gaza. It cannot resupply its remaining fighters. It cannot maintain the financial scaffolding that kept the organization functional.
The external leadership may still have personal wealth accumulated over years of controlling Gaza. But the movement itself is financially hollow. When your host countries want you gone and your patron can no longer pay, you are not negotiating a political settlement. You are negotiating your personal exit.
Universal International Pressure
Adding to Hamas’s isolation is the unprecedented global consensus behind the Trump-Netanyahu peace plan. In a joint statement, the foreign ministers of Qatar, Jordan, UAE, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt welcomed the proposal, affirming their “confidence in his ability to find a path to peace.” Europe joined the chorus, with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen welcoming Trump’s commitment to end the war, and European Council President Antonio Costa expressing encouragement at Netanyahu’s positive response. Even China expressed support for efforts to ease tensions, while Russia and the Vatican also endorsed the framework. The Palestinian Authority, despite its own complicated relationship with Hamas, welcomed the plan as well. It goes without saying that Donald Trump will see his chances increase to get the Nobel Peace Prize.
This wall of international support leaves Hamas with no diplomatic allies and no alternative proposals on the table. Every government that might have once provided political cover or advocated for Hamas’s position has instead lined up behind a plan that demands the organization’s complete disarmament and removal from power. Qatar’s Prime Minister explicitly told Hamas leaders this was the best deal they could get and urged acceptance. When even your traditional backers and mediators are telling you to surrender, the message is unmistakable: you have no cards left to play.
The Survival Instinct
The current discussion about “giving up power” is not about negotiating a political transition or ensuring orderly governance in Gaza. Hamas’s external leadership is negotiating personal immunity deals. Can they avoid extradition? Can they avoid prosecution in international courts? Can they avoid assassination? Can they protect the wealth they have accumulated over years of skimming funds, controlling smuggling operations, and diverting international aid?
This last concern may be the most acute. When a legitimate government eventually forms in Gaza, one of its first priorities will undoubtedly be recovering the funds that Hamas leaders absconded with over nearly two decades of rule. The Palestinian public will demand accountability. International donors who poured billions into Gaza reconstruction will want to know where the money went. Banks and financial institutions that may have facilitated transfers will face scrutiny.
Hamas’s external leadership understands this threat perfectly. Any deal they negotiate now must not only guarantee their physical safety but also protect their assets from future recovery efforts. This is why they are in such a hurry to formalize arrangements while they still have any bargaining position at all. Once they lose even the pretense of control over Gaza, they will have nothing left to trade, and their accumulated wealth will become a prime target for asset recovery proceedings.
Some leaders may still harbor delusions that ceding formal control could relieve pressure while allowing them to retain informal influence through residual networks. But this calculation is divorced from reality. Without Iranian money, those networks cannot be sustained. Without host country tolerance, those channels cannot operate. Hamas’s credibility has always rested on its claim to be the spearhead of Palestinian resistance. If it is seen to have abandoned Gaza while its leaders cut personal immunity deals abroad, it will be remembered as a corrupt faction that traded away its only base of power to save individual skins.
Conclusion
Hamas is finally talking about giving up power in Gaza because a perfect storm has converged: military and governing capacity destroyed, host governments demanding removal, and Iranian financial support collapsed. What the external leadership is negotiating now is not Gaza’s future, but their own personal survival.
Hamas as a project — as a governing force, as a resistance movement, as a political entity with territorial control — has reached its end. There is no pathway back to relevance, no restoration of legitimacy, no strategic revival. The organization is finished. The only remaining question is whether individual leaders can cut deals to avoid prosecution, extradition, or assassination while protecting their accumulated wealth.
The days of Hamas feasting on the misery of the Palestinians in Gaza are over. There is no endgame there.