Israel’s assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh, coming days after the apparent killing of the top Hezbollah military leader, Fuad Shukr, is a gamble that could have dire consequences — but also might lead to a deescalation scenario for a Middle East on the brink of total explosion.
Of course, the main concern is Hamas revenge against the remaining 115 hostages it holds in Gaza (some of whom are believed dead). There is also a danger that the killing may scuttle talks to release the hostages and end the war — which are anyway mired in an Israeli political morass. And a huge danger lies with Iran: Its unpredictable leadership could choose to focus on the fact that Haniyeh was killed in Tehran to justify a major escalation, and it can deploy levers in the form of militias in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
Related
Assassinations are in general a terrible idea, and there is a taboo against assassinating political leaders, even dictators. But the emergence of non-state military forces that are widely seen as terrorist operations has created a massive exception to that approach. Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and Islamic State head Abu Bakr el-Baghdadi, both killed by the U.S., fall into this category, as does Haniyeh.
The Haniyeh assassination is justified by Israel on three grounds: retaliation, deterrence and diplomacy by other means.
Retaliation
The concept of vengeance is deeply attached to philosophy and even religion, as we know. The notion of “an eye for an eye” comes from no less an authority than the book of Exodus.
Viewed in that light, assassinations can be seen as a form of justice, particularly as retribution for significant loss of life. They can satisfy victims and their families and can be politically beneficial for governments that need to show action. The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — which three-quarters of Israelis want gone — is desperate for a win.
In this case, we’re talking about retaliation over the Oct. 7 invasion by Hamas of Israel, in which 1,200 people were massacred and which sparked the current war. Hamas’ decision-making structure is somewhat opaque, and it is not clear whether Haniyeh, as the Qatar-based political leader, was calling the shots for the Hamas attack. Nor is it clear to what extent he had negotiating power in the ongoing hostage release talks. What is indisputable, however is that Haniyeh defended and celebrated the terror attack, and was involved in the negotiations; Israel has vowed revenge and revenge has now been had.
In Israel his assassination will be popular, mostly. But obviously, for those who hate Israel or its West Bank occupation enough to justify any assault against it (and that applies to many people in the region and perhaps most Palestinians), it is simply another crime to be itself avenged.
Deterrence
In theory, high-profile assassinations can serve as a deterrent, signaling to other terrorist leaders that they are not beyond reach. This might cause them to operate more cautiously, potentially reducing the frequency and scale of their activities. It also sends a message to the group’s followers that their leaders are vulnerable, which might weaken morale. Yet it’s unclear if this theory works in practice.
Israel has assassinated a long and impressive rogues’ gallery of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders over the years. In some cases Israel has admitted to these acts, and in other cases, especially with Hezbollah, word was leaked or the outcome was determined by intelligence assessments — this is a murky area of life (and death).
Such killings can prevent imminent attacks and disrupt the command structure of terrorist organizations. Many terrorist leaders possess specialized skills, knowledge and experience that are difficult to replace, buying some time. But in most cases, the assassinations of these leaders only temporarily disrupted the organizations. In some instances, the assassinations even served to galvanize support and strengthen resolve within the organizations.
Related
Crucially, in no case did the killings lead to an immediate major shift in the conflict with the groups involved. After the initial shock and any reprisal attempts, the departed was swiftly replaced with another fanatic, and the outrage over his assassination was diluted in the cesspool of grievance that is the ever-present driver of the fanaticism itself. In a University of Michigan study analyzing Israel’s targeted assassinations between 2000 and 2004, researchers found that they did not lead to a lasting reduction in violence. In other words, Haniyeh’s assassination will likely not deter Hamas in the long term.
Diplomacy by other means
Whatever the actual results of previous assassinations, Israel has repeatedly gone to that well in recent weeks, assassinating not just Haniyeh but also, according to news reports and intelligence leaks, the Hamas military commander in Gaza, Mohammed Deif (in an airstrike several weeks ago), and the Hezbollah military chief Shukr (in a Beirut airstrike Saturday) in retaliation for the killing of 12 Druze children by a Hezbollah bomb in in the Golan Heights.
Which leads us to the main way Haniyeh’s assassination might make practical sense — as a tool of diplomacy.
On the one hand, many in Israel itself are convinced that Netanyahu is himself blocking progress on such a deal, reluctant to end the war. Qatari and Egyptian negotiators are also frustrated by Haniyeh’s assassination. “How can mediation succeed when one party assassinates the negotiator on the other side?” Qatari Prime Minister Sheik Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani wrote on X this morning.
In a perfect world, Haniyeh’s likely successor , Khaled Mashal — a man known to appreciate the good life in his Qatar exile — will quietly be cowed and push for a hostage deal. But these new assassinations may actually provide Netanyahu with a way to sell his political base a perception of success, demonstrating that Israel has wiped out the highest echelons of evildoer leadership. Netanyahu can claim they have weakened these terrorist groups to the point of strategic victory and he can tout a plausible “mission accomplished” narrative.
With growing international and domestic calls for a ceasefire, as civilian casualties mount, Netanyahu could leverage these assassinations as a way to bow to this pressure without appearing weak, hypothetically accelerating the negotiations to end military hostilities and bring home the remaining hostages.
It is also conceivable that Haniyeh’s death could lead to temporary disarray within Hamas — which, while almost irrelevant in the long term as we have seen, might be useful at a critical juncture for the hostage talks.
Related
Most Popular
Comments / 0