Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, victim of a presumed Israeli strike, has been replaced by Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. Is this a gain for the state of Israel?
No. While Haniyeh may have been a legitimate target under traditional laws of war, the benefit of targeted killings of enemy commanders is strongly disputed by many strategic analysts.
In perspective, there is nothing new about assassinating enemy leaders. Medieval Italian city-states sometimes had official assassins assigned for the purpose. Over time, as the laws of war were codified, states abiding by these laws generally limited the targets to enemy combatants. There was no protest, for example, when the United States, during World War II, targeted and shot down the plane carrying Admiral Yamamoto, planner of the Pearl Harbor attack.
Enemy combatants could also be legitimate targets in the absence of a declared war, as with terrorists who are waging war on civilians. The fact that perpetrators are not wearing uniforms and are not part of a regular military force provides them, in fact, with even less protection under the laws of war.
Of course legitimate attacks on terrorist leaders must also observe the usual legal provisions protecting innocent civilians.
Opponents of targeted killing classify it as “extrajudicial killing,,” which it is. It is also “assassination,” another ugly word. But wars, declared or undeclared, are not bound by courtroom judicial procedures.
Advocates of targeted killing have evoked the term “decapitation” to describe the strategy behind it. Presumably, decimating leaders of an enemy force will demoralize and weaken it and contribute to its eventual demise.
Evidence of the effectiveness of “decapitation” is, however, hard to come by. Many strategic analysts argue that the historical record of its success is bleak at best. Movements of this kind usually replace martyred leaders with others of the same stripe, or even worse, without losing a beat.
The United States employed a version of targeted killing against Viet Kong commanders in South Vietnam. Obviously this did not change the outcome. There are numerous negative examples – though autocratic regimes such as Russia and North Korea seem to have made more effective (and definitely illegal) use of the practice, silencing dissenters who have fled to other lands.
But what did Israel gain from blowing up Haniyeh in Teheran? Haniyeh was replaced with the actual planner of the October 7 attack, a Hamas leader – Sinwar --who has apparently bragged of personally beheading a captive. Wonderful.
And at the same time the nation braces for a retaliatory strike and possibly a larger war as a result of an arguably legal but provocative and brainless act of vengeance.
Where are the real strategic thinkers when they are needed?
What would Golda Meir say? I keep thinking of the famous quote attributed to her "I can forgive you for killing our sons. I can't forgive you for making our sons killers".
How are we finally going to get rid of Netanyahu and his cohorts in obstructing justice?