Destroying Hamas Includes Haniyeh
Killing Ismail Haniyeh is entirely justified and may even turn out to be smart policy
Why Israel is at War With Hamas
On October 7, armed attackers belonging to Hamas launched a surprise invasion of Israel from Gaza. The invaders murdered almost 1200 Israelis including approximately 800 civilians and 400 soldiers and police and taking over 240 captives. The attack was unexpected by Israel’s army and its leadership, which believed that a series of economic concessions and the overwhelming power of the IDF had deterred Hamas from any plans for mass violence against Israel. Israel had allowed money to flow to Gaza from Qatar and authorized the employment of up to 20,000 Gaza residents at jobs in Israel, with the money flowing into the Gaza economy.
Due to the tight control Hamas exercised over the day to day lives of people in Gaza, access to employment in Israel required approval by the Hamas regime. There are reports that Hamas took as much as 75% of what they earned. As it turned out, people working in Israel were also tasked with spying on Israeli communities and military bases where they were employed. That intelligence was important to the success of Hamas invaders in killing hundreds of Israeli men, women, and children.
Hamas has acted violently against Israel for decades and their core purpose was to undermine any progress towards peace and reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians and between Israel and the wider Arab world. The grave error made by Israel’s leadership before October 7, was believing that they had successfully bribed Hamas, and that Hamas was no longer working to ensure that a peaceful future for Israel is impossible.
The Goal of Hamas has not Changed: That Goal is the End of Israel
In a recent article (Wish You Were Here) we highlighted the role played by Hamas in undermining support among Israeli voters for territorial compromise and preventing the reelection of the Israeli government that had negotiated Oslo in 1995, months after the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin. In the place of the government that had supported Oslo, Israelis elected a government led by Benjamin Netanyahu, the chief opponent of the Oslo accords. The shift in public opinion was achieved through a series of cruel and deadly attacks, which undermined the sense of security of Israeli voters. The inability of the government under Shimon Peres to protect the people from atrocities committed by Hamas was a key factor in reducing support for the peace process with the Palestinians.
In our own time, the October 7 invasion, which seems to have been part of a wider plan to attack Israel from all sides, was launched prematurely without coordination with Iran, Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies. It has been argued that Hamas did this due to the imminent prospect of a normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia. To prevent such a deal the Hamas leadership were apparently willing to pay almost any price.
Haniyeh is Responsible for October 7
The leader of Hamas on October 7 and for many years before that was Ismail Haniyeh. As the leader, Haniyeh was ultimately responsible for the crimes of October 7. In November, a one week truce stopped the fighting in Gaza and led to freedom for 105 of the people kidnapped from Israel and held hostage after that. In seven months of negotiations since the end of the initial truce between Israel and Hamas, a second deal for a ceasefire and the release of the rest of the hostages taken on October 7 has not been not reached. Hamas repeatedly introduced new conditions, each time a deal was said to be close. Over the subsequent months, many of those hostages have been killed. Testimony from the people who were released suggests that the remaining hostages are living in horrific conditions and are subject to all kinds of abuse.
Image: Hamas Leader Ismail Haniyeh in Iran, Shortly Before his Death ——— Source JN24
Given the ongoing crimes against the hostages, and the apparent lack of seriousness by Hamas in securing a second truce, the killing of Haniyeh seems to us to have been richly deserved and a useful message to whoever in Hamas will be the next person in charge. The message is that delaying a deal indefinitely will come at a continuing high price. The other message is that Israel is serious in its war aims. Both the release of all hostages, and the end of Hamas rule in Gaza are non-negotiable. Israel will use whatever means are necessary to achieve both objectives.
What’s Next?
Since Haniyeh’s assassination, people have been discussing the implications of his death. Was it wise? Will it undermine the chance of a hostage deal? Will it lead to a wider war? Where does the army stand? Where does the Biden administration stand? Each of these questions could be the subject of a full article.
On the risk of a wider war, we remain at the time of writing uncertain of what will come next. Both Iran and Hezbollah are saying that the the killing of Haniyeh demands a “severe response”. A number of airlines have cancelled flights to Israel, as they did in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks. The IDF are said to be on alert, and have called on citizens to be “vigilant”, but there are no new instructions to Israel’s civilian population. Israelis are carrying on with their lives, albeit with a higher level of anxiety, just as many of us are in the rest of the world.
Impact on Hostage Negotiations
On whether the killing will derail a hostage deal, President Biden has been quoted as saying it “didn’t help”. However, the prospect of a deal has been said to be close a number of times over the past seven months, and always seemed to evaporate, due to some new demand by Hamas. This seemed to us more like psychological warfare by Hamas against Israel, than a serious negotiation.
More recently an offer was put on the table in a national address by President Biden, containing broad Israeli concessions. Although they didn’t say it explicitly, for the US administration, this offer appeared to be a test of the seriousness of Hamas. Hamas failed that test, in our judgment, by dragging out talks and then adding additional demands. When Hamas declined the deal, Israel was freed to enter Rafah, which the Americans had pressured Israel not to do until then.
More recently, Hamas was said to have moved on some of these demands and Netanyahu came under pressure from the far right parties in the coalition not to agree to a deal, and from the hostage families and some elements in the leadership of the security forces to get the deal done. Talks were delayed while Netanyahu went to Washington in July, where he made an uncompromising defense of Israel’s position in his address to Congress and met with American leaders, to try to enlist their support for his firm line.
Whether Hamas was seriously willing to conclude a deal or just engaging in continuing efforts to stall and shift blame for the lack of a truce on to Israel, is unclear. With the murder of twelve children by Hezbollah, and the killing of Hezbollah Chief of Staff, Fuad Shukr in response, the resumption of negotiations was further delayed.
Has the Death of Haniyeh Made the Situation Better or Worse for Israel?
The death of Haniyeh, for which Israel has not taken responsibility, occurred just after that. Much of the world has been talking about the consequences ever since.
Those who criticize the assassination (assuming that Israel was responsible) say that it has increased the chances of a wider war and reduced or eliminated the chances of a truce, sealing the fate of the hostages. It made us feel better, perhaps, and was important symbolically, but it doesn’t advance any of Israel’s concrete objectives, according to these critics.
But there is a strong case being made that killing Haniyeh is to Israel’s practical advantage. In an article in Commentary, Israeli Lives Aren’t Cheap, Seth Mandel argues that the killing of Haniyeh sends a clear message to Hamas leadership that as long as there is no ceasefire, Hamas will pay a high price. According to Mandel, the same Jewish value of treasuring life accounts for both the pursuit of a hostage deal and the killing of Haniyeh:
This is the value of being a citizen of Israel, and it cannot be underestimated. It is the same value behind the constant search for a hostage deal. The Israel that took out Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran is the Israel that agrees to lopsided trades to bring its captives home, one at a time if necessary. No matter how communal its practices or collectivist its apportionment of responsibility for the rest of the nation, Judaism has never stopped valuing every individual life.
Those who worry about the fate of a ceasefire deal should be encouraged by Haniyeh’s date with destiny. There are different ways to protect Jewish life, and Israel takes each opportunity when it presents itself.
Claiming Killing Haniyeh was Wrong
Mandel notes in his article that the Reuters coverage of Haniyeh’s death portrays him as a moderate. For those who have insisted since the start of the war, that Israel is in the wrong, there is no actor on the other side, however depraved, who cannot be turned into a victim.
On the morning after the news came out, my fellow congregant Mira Sucharov made a short sharp post on Facebook that drew a response from this author. The subsequent discussion occupied several hours of my time that day. Mira is a professor of political science at Carleton University. She is interviewed in the media as an expert on Israeli issues. As such, I take her public positions seriously. Here is what she wrote:
On Haniyeh: Israel again misunderstands the meaning of deterrence, leading the hostages and their loved ones to pay the price.
I responded to this post by asking her what Israel would do if they did “understand deterrence.” In response she wrote this:
David Roytenberg depends what their goals are. If hostage release, you don’t kill the negotiator.
She later admitted that Haniyeh wasn’t actually the negotiator. “Correction: the main Hamas negotiator hasn’t been Haniyeh but rather Al-Hayya.“ She then elaborated on the issue of deterrence by writing:
The point is, these war machine operators use the term “deterrence” to describe any and every reckless escalation. Deterrence is the threat of unacceptable force to *deter* an attack. Once force has been used, deterrence has failed. As for this wildly stupid move, things will only get worse from here.
To this I replied: “Mira Sucharov so by your own argument, the killing of Haniyah has nothing to with deterrence.”
She admitted this was true.
David Roytenberg correct. It’s a reckless show of force that won’t serve to deter anything. It will escalate (and prolong the hostages’ living hell, assuming some are still alive).
and added
David Roytenberg it also leaves Israeli leaders vulnerable to assassination attempts. Israel has thrown out the rulebook here.
On this point she was challenged by another academic who pointed out that the use of assassination (including by Israel) is a long established practice in that part of the world and that no such rule book against assassination actually seems to exist. My response was to make a different point:
Mira Sucharov Hamas threw out the rule book on October 7 in my opinion.
Haniyah has been dicking around for 7 months. It’s not at all obvious (to me at least) that he would ever have agreed to release hostages on terms Israel could live with.
Hamas strategy of attacking Israel and turning it into a pariah by misrepresenting its response is working pretty well. Why would they stop?
In reply, Mira simply asked me if I thought the killing of Haniyeh would help get the hostages out. Someone else pointed out that I was wrong to say that Hamas “threw out the rule book”, since it puts Israel and Hamas on the same level. I admitted that I was wrong about that, because Hamas has never had a rule book.
The discussion continued with other participants weighing in. Many seemed convinced that Israel’s action was reckless, or that no action was worth the risk if there was any possibility it would decrease the chances of a hostage deal.
Haniyeh’s Assassination Could Make a Hostage Deal More Likely
We will conclude by pointing out that the person who arrived first in the room to discover the body of Haniyeh, was none other than Khalil al-Hayya, the same person Mira said has been the actual Hamas negotiator. Al-Hayya was deputy leader of Hamas before the death of Haniyeh. If Al-Hayya is now their senior leader, an argument can be made that the memory of seeing Haniyeh’s body might in fact focus the minds of the Hamas leadership on the advantages of bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion, and getting Israel to cease fire.
A similar argument can be offered in response to those decrying the use of Iranian territory for the assassination, as a reckless escalation. It seems to us that with all the harm that has been caused by Iran on Israel’s territory, there is nothing escalatory about assassinating Haniyeh on Iranian territory.
Indeed, the fact that Israel can strike someone under Iran’s protection in a high security zone only a few hundred meters from the residence of Iran’s new president, may serve as a useful reminder to the Iranians of how capable Israelis are of harming their enemies, wherever they may be. Perhaps the Iranian leadership is not quite as eager for martyrdom as the leaders of Hamas. If that’s the case, the operation against Haniyeh may well end up increasing Israeli deterrence after all.
Canadian Zionist Forum is dedicated to promoting better understanding and rational discussion of Israel and Zionism, and how this affects Canadian Jews. We thank you for reading and encourage you to take out a paid subscription in order to join in the discussion.
As we mark 300 days of war and captivity for the hostages, we enter Shabbat with hope that a wider war will be avoided and that our hostages will soon be back with their loved ones. We pray for the welfare of the all the Israeli soldiers and for success against our enemies whose ongoing crimes demand a forceful response.
May the God of Israel grant us victory and the bless the people of Israel with peace.
Your congregant doesn't appear to me to be very bright at all whatever he expertise. First she wrongly creates a scenario where the ONLY goal is the release of the hostages. As you point out it is fairly obvious that only an Israeli surrender would free some though not all of the hostages. Additionally as you point out increasing the physical risk to the terror leaders themselves tends to make them more not less pliable.
But most importantly she seems to have no concept of what deterrence is what is intended to do or how it is intended to operate. She calls what Israel did reckless. I take issue with that. But in fact it is the fear of reckless or at least harsh and overwhelming action that provides deterrence. Israel, by its strategy over the last 30 years has allowed its sense of deterrence to entirely erode. Perhaps this the beginning of restoring it. The alternative is to punish every atrocity with massive destruction for its own sake. Just to make a point. It seems to me that hitting high level terror leaders in the heart of Beirut and Tehran has at least a possibility of making the Mullahs think twice before escalating any further and that is what restores deterrence. Not bellowing DONT when the enemy knows you will do nothing.
I agree that Israel made a significant statement / sent a strong message with the assassination of Haniyeh. As you said, he was in Iran, under Iran’s protection, in a high security zone, and his body was discovered by Hamas deputy leader Khalil al-Hayya.
Yes, quite the strong clear message of "how capable Israelis are of harming their enemies, wherever they may be."
I continue to worry for the safety of the hostages, but I see no reason to believe that this assassination has interfered with the the negotiations that have stalled again and again and again. My thoughts and prayers are forever with the hostages, the IDF and Israel.