Assassination of Hamas Political Chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran Throws Wrench into Peace Talks Between Israel and Hamas

The US-backed peace process between Israel and Palestinian resistance group Hamas, which according to American officials was just yards away has gone into a tailspin, after the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh the political chief of Hamas in Tehran in an alleged Israeli covert operation.

Israel is known for its longstanding strategy of targeted assassinations.

From Beirut to Uruguay, to Sao Paulo, Rome, Paris, etc. Israel’s famed security agencies have relentlessly pursued adversaries far beyond their borders, leaving a trail of high-profile eliminations. Starting with the killing of Egyptian military attache Salah Mustafa in Amman, Jordan in 1956, analysts say, so far Israel has killed at least 60 adversaries beyond its borders.

Blow to mediation efforts

But none of them had the kind of impact as the assassination of Haniyeh. Along with the assassination in Tehran, Israeli strikes also killed senior Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr in Beirut. Sources in Ankara and Qatar suggest that Haniyeh’s death will severely complicate ongoing mediation efforts. Known as a moderate voice in negotiations, his loss is seen as a devastating blow to the peace process.

A source involved in the negotiations in Cairo expressed deep concerns. “The chief negotiator of a key party has been killed. He was someone who saw the value of a deal and was instrumental in achieving breakthroughs. It is unclear how this will impact the ceasefire talks,” he told Frontline.

American officials had been optimistic about the ceasefire negotiations, with recent meetings in Rome indicating potential progress. Qatar and Egypt, both crucial mediators, have voiced strong objections to the assassination. Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani condemned the assassination on social media, questioning how mediation can succeed when one party assassinates the negotiator on the other side. Egypt’s Foreign Ministry echoed these sentiments, describing the killing as part of a “dangerous Israeli escalation policy”.

Also Read | Israel’s diversionary attack on Iran has set off a new security crisis in West Asia

Eran Etzion, former deputy head of Israel’s National Security Council, commented that the assassination could be seen as a strategy to derail the ceasefire deal. He suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu might be seeking a larger conflict, contrasting with the broader Israeli interest in avoiding full-scale war. This view is complicated by the possibility of an Iranian response, potentially escalating into a wider conflict.

The ceasefire plan, meticulously structured in multiple phases, now faces uncertainty.

Different phases of ceasefire plan

Phase one called for an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire, the release of hostages, and the safe return of Palestinians to their homes.

Phase Two would see a permanent end to hostilities “in exchange for the release of all other hostages still in Gaza, and a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza,” according to UN News. Phase three, on the other hand, would have a “major multi-year reconstruction plan for Gaza” and the remains of any deceased hostages still in the Strip would be returned to Israel.

President Biden had described the deal as a “durable end to the war,” emphasising its importance for long-term peace. Haniyeh’s role in these negotiations was crucial, making his assassination a significant setback.

Hundreds of protesting Iranians protest the killing of Ismail Haniyeh in Palestine Square in Tehran, Wednesday, July 31, 2024.
| Photo Credit:
Majid Saeedi/Getty Images

Ismail Haniyeh was seen as the diplomatic face of the Palestinian resistance organisation. Those privy to negotiations say his pragmatic approach contrasted with the more hardline members of the group. They say that the other leader Khaled Meshaal, also seen as a moderate face, does not wield as much influence on the military wing of Hamas as Haniyeh had.

They say the killing of Haniyeh, therefore, is not just a loss of a leader but a strategic blow to the peace process.

Haniyeh’s journey

Born in 1963 in the al-Shati refugee camp in Gaza, Haniyeh’s life was shaped by the struggles of his displaced family. His parents, forced to flee Ashkelon during the 1948 Palestine war, settled in the camp where Haniyeh began his journey into political activism. He earned a bachelor’s degree in Arabic literature from the Islamic University of Gaza in 1987, during which he became actively involved with the Palestinian resistance organisation.

His activism led to several imprisonments and exile to Lebanon in 1992. Returning to Gaza after a year, he rose through the ranks, becoming a significant figure in the organisation.

In 2006, Haniyeh was elected as the Prime Minister of the State of Palestine following his party’s legislative victory.

Internal conflicts and international pressure led to his dismissal by President Mahmoud Abbas in 2007, but Haniyeh continued to wield considerable influence. In 2017, he was elected chairman of the organisation’s Political Bureau, replacing Khaled Meshaal.

During his time in Qatar, Haniyeh remained a key figure in Palestinian politics, often involved in ceasefire negotiations. Israel’s targeted killing program forms a crucial part of its counterinsurgency strategy, often drawing comparisons with American methods.

Unlike the British approach, which emphasised softening the enemy to force them to come to negotiating tables, Israel and the US have focused on decapitating the leadership for quick results. This method has been contentious, with critics arguing it leads to the rise of splinter groups that are harder to negotiate with.

Also Read | Palestinian Authority’s declining influence portends more trouble for Gaza

Britain succeeded in settling the Northern Ireland issue forever by softening Irish Republican Army leaders by using tactics like choking funds and arms supplies and hitting middle-rung cadres thus forcing the top leaders to come to the negotiating table, instead of killing them.

India also used to adopt the same doctrine till a few years ago, when it switched to the American policy of achieving quick results. Adopting British doctrine had helped India to completely end the insurgency in Mizoram by bringing Laldenga to the negotiating table and in several other Northeastern States. In 1970, it had also almost finished the issue of Jammu and Kashmir as well by bringing Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah to the negotiating table and concluding an accord.

Global outcry

The international community’s response to Haniyeh’s assassination has been swift and severe. Egypt and Russia condemned the act as a dangerous escalation. Turkish President Erdogan called for a unified Islamic stance against Israeli actions, while Iran vowed to hold Israel accountable. Leaders from Lebanon and Jordan also criticised the assassination, viewing it as a violation of international law.

Israel’s history of targeted assassinations reflects a broader counterinsurgency doctrine that prioritises eliminating leadership. But this approach also brings significant risks and challenges, particularly in maintaining long-term peace and stability. The world watches with bated breath, hoping for a resolution that can navigate these treacherous waters and move towards a lasting peace in the region.

Iftikhar Gilani is an Indian journalist based in Ankara.

_{Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.}