Introduction:
The assassination of the head of the political bureau of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, by the Israeli entity in Tehran on July 31, 2024, marked a significant development in the ongoing confrontation between Hamas and Palestinian resistance factions and the Israeli entity within the context of the ongoing “Al-Aqsa Flood” battle that has lasted for approximately 11 months.
This assassination has raised numerous questions regarding its potential impact on Hamas’s leadership dynamics, its ability to manage the challenge of losing its political bureau head, the trajectory of the ceasefire negotiations, the prisoner exchange deal, and the apparent attempts by Benjamin Netanyahu to obstruct and thwart these efforts. Additionally, it has sparked concerns about the potential for escalation, regional conflict, and the likelihood of a broader confrontation.
1. Timing, Motives, and Objectives:
The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh occurred one day after a similar operation in which Israeli forces assassinated Hezbollah’s military leader Fouad Shukr in Beirut. It also took place less than a week after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States, where he delivered a celebratory speech before the U.S. Congress on July 24, 2024. Furthermore, this crime coincided with mounting internal and external pressures on Netanyahu and his far-right coalition.
Several potential motives might have justified the assassination of Haniyeh:
- Netanyahu’s political crisis worsened after his military campaign against Gaza failed to achieve any of its stated objectives, leading to increased domestic pressure to change strategy, prioritize the release of prisoners, even if it required a ceasefire, and withdraw Israeli forces from Gaza.
- Growing discontent within the Israeli military regarding the prolonged conflict without a clear end in sight, with disputes between Netanyahu’s government and the military leadership regarding the war’s course and the feasibility of achieving its objectives, including handling the proposed prisoner exchange deal.
- Escalating tensions between Netanyahu and the U.S. administration over the ceasefire deal and prisoner exchange, with Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate, expressing serious concerns about the civilian casualties in Gaza during her meeting with Netanyahu on his recent U.S. visit, emphasizing that it was time to end the war.
Facing internal and external challenges, Netanyahu felt the need to shake things up in the region, escape forward, and impose new realities.
Among the key objectives Netanyahu sought to achieve through Haniyeh’s assassination were:
- Scoring a political and field victory to counter criticisms of his failure to achieve the stated goals of the war on Gaza.
- Alleviating internal and external pressures to end the war and reach a prisoner exchange deal, thus extending the war and maintaining a military presence in Gaza.
- Disrupting Hamas’s organizational dynamics, creating confusion within the movement, and putting it under difficult pressure during the ongoing conflict, attempting to spark internal divisions and contradictions regarding leadership arrangements.
- Creating an opportunity to embroil the United States in an open confrontation with Iran, fulfilling Netanyahu’s long-standing goal of eliminating what he sees as a strategic Iranian threat.
2. Potential Consequences of the Assassination:
The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh could have several implications for Hamas, the ceasefire deal, and regional stability, including:
a. Impact on Hamas’s Organizational Structure:
The loss of a Palestinian figure of Ismail Haniyeh’s stature and significance undoubtedly constitutes a major blow to Hamas and the Palestinian national arena. Haniyeh led Hamas for about seven years and had previously headed the movement’s leadership in Gaza and served as Prime Minister following the 2006 legislative elections, where Hamas won a majority of the seats.
For two decades, Haniyeh emerged as a widely accepted national figure, gaining broad political and popular support, consistently outpacing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in various public opinion polls. The latest poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, published on July 10, 2024, indicated that Haniyeh would receive 76% of the votes compared to Abbas’s 20% in a hypothetical presidential election.
It is likely that Netanyahu aimed, through the assassination of Haniyeh and his removal from the Palestinian scene, to weaken Hamas, deal it a severe blow, disrupt its leadership structure, and provoke internal conflicts and organizational divisions during the process of selecting Haniyeh’s successor.
Despite the significant challenge Hamas faced, occurring at a critical and sensitive time, it appears that the movement recognized the Israeli goals behind the assassination and sought to thwart them. Several indicators demonstrate Hamas’s response to the challenge of selecting Yahya Sinwar as Haniyeh’s successor in the political bureau:
The movement highlighted its ability to respond to challenges, engage in political and organizational deliberations, and make quick decisions during critical and sensitive moments. The selection process for Sinwar as Haniyeh’s successor in the political bureau did not take long, contrary to what might have happened in other movements.
The movement demonstrated its unity and cohesion, as Sinwar was unanimously chosen to complete the remaining term of Haniyeh’s presidency, with no harmful organizational divisions or competitions emerging during the selection process, which the movement claimed was conducted calmly, smoothly, and with high responsibility.
The movement emphasized the independence of its political, field, and organizational decisions. This independence was evident in the decision to carry out the October 7, 2023, operation, which all parties acknowledged was made without the knowledge of various regional actors. The movement also managed the negotiations for a ceasefire and prisoner exchange deal in a way that confirmed its political independence. The selection of Haniyeh’s successor further highlighted the independence of its organizational decisions, guided by its bylaws and institutions, free from external interventions and pressures.
The selection of a new political bureau head for the movement showcased the availability of multiple qualified candidates for leadership positions, affirming the movement’s resilience and its ability to compensate and replace leaders. The process also demonstrated a high level of institutional decision-making.
The process of selecting a new political bureau head also reflected a high degree of consultative and democratic practices within the movement, far from the dominance and influence of central leadership figures, as is often the case in many political movements. Hamas has seen successive leaderships over the decades, starting with Dr. Musa Abu Marzouq, who led the first political bureau from 1993 to 1996, followed by Khaled Mashal (1996–2017), Ismail Haniyeh (2017–2024), and finally, Yahya Sinwar, who was chosen to complete the current electoral cycle.
The movement has consistently adhered to its electoral deadlines, even in the most challenging circumstances, as demonstrated by the recent selection of Haniyeh’s successor amidst ongoing conflict, and previously in 1996 when Mashal was elected as the political bureau head during Abu Marzouq’s detention in U.S. prisons.
b. Impact on Hamas’s Position Regarding the Ceasefire and Prisoner Exchange Deal:
Contrary to Netanyahu’s and the far-right’s desires, the assassination of Haniyeh did not affect Hamas’s stance on the negotiations for a ceasefire and prisoner exchange. The movement’s management of the exchange deal after Haniyeh’s assassination revealed significant insights:
The political decision within Hamas is institutional and made by the relevant bodies, not linked to the position of any single leader, regardless of their organizational importance. The movement has demonstrated advanced political maturity, making decisions based on careful political calculations rather than impulsive or emotional reactions. Hamas continued to manage its position on the negotiations with the same considerations and assessments that were in place before Haniyeh’s assassination. The same occurred after the assassination of the movement’s deputy political bureau head and West Bank leader, Saleh Al-Arouri, on January 2, 2024.
Hamas’s political decisions are primarily driven by national interests rather than narrow factional or sectarian considerations. The insistence on a complete ceasefire aims primarily to stop the killing and destruction and end the humanitarian suffering inflicted on Gaza’s civilian population by Israeli policies and acts of genocide.
Continuing massacres and leadership assassinations do not succeed in pressuring or extorting the movement to back down from its fundamental demands or make political concessions it had previously rejected before the assassination.
c. Impact on Regional Stability and the Likelihood of a Broad Confrontation:
The assassination of Haniyeh in Tehran provoked strong reactions from Iran, which quickly blamed the Israeli entity for violating Iranian sovereignty and vowed harsh and painful retaliation. This incident reminded many of Iran’s response to the attack on its consulate in Damascus on April 1, 2024, when Iran launched over 300 missiles and drones toward Israel on April 13, 2024. U.S. and Western forces in the region intercepted most of these missiles before they reached their targets.
After Iran’s threats to retaliate more severely against Israel for the assassination of Haniyeh, fears of a widespread regional confrontation increased. The region witnessed intense diplomatic activity and extensive military preparations, with the United States deploying numerous aircraft carriers and a nuclear submarine, pledging to defend Israel against any potential Iranian attacks.
However, over time, Iran’s threats to retaliate for Haniyeh’s assassination in Tehran have somewhat subsided, though they continue to assert that a response is forthcoming at the appropriate time and place. Simultaneously, the U.S., in cooperation with Egypt and Qatar, intensified efforts to reach a ceasefire and prisoner exchange deal between Israel and Hamas to calm the situation and prevent further escalation in the region.
Meanwhile, the confrontation front between Hezbollah and Israel witnessed an escalation on the morning of August 25, 2024, when Hezbollah launched approximately 340 missiles and several drones, according to Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, who stated that the attack was in response to the assassination of Fouad Shukr
Israeli sources confirmed that the country’s air defense systems intercepted most of these missiles and drones before they reached their targets, but one of them managed to reach a settlement in Kiryat Shmona, north of the occupied Palestinian territories, causing material damage without any casualties.
In this context, the assassination of Haniyeh and the rising tensions between Israel and Hezbollah raised concerns about the outbreak of a broad confrontation, especially since Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S. was partly to urge the U.S. administration to act as quickly as possible to prevent Hezbollah from firing missiles from southern Lebanon, a region Israel regards as the most significant threat.
Conclusion:
The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh by the Israeli entity represents a significant development in the ongoing conflict between Hamas and the Israeli entity. It raises important questions about the future of Hamas’s leadership, the trajectory of ceasefire negotiations, and regional stability. The movement’s response, marked by resilience and unity, suggests that Hamas can navigate this challenge. However, the potential for further escalation in the region remains a serious concern, with diplomatic efforts intensifying to prevent a broader conflict.
