ANALYSIS: By Binoy Kampmark
It prompted an outbreak of grim cheer in Israel. In Washington, there were similar pulsations of congratulation.
Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was dead, killed in Rafah after being spotted by an Israeli patrol and located by yet another one of those drones ubiquitous over the skies of Gaza.
Sinwar was considered the central figure behind the October 7 attacks on Israel, which left, in its wake, more than 1200 dead and 250 hostages of diminishing number.
His death earlier this month prompted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to declare this to be “the beginning of the end”.
Notwithstanding this cherished scalp, Netanyahu also made it clear that the war would continue.
“It is harsh and it takes a heavy price from us.” Out of force of habit, a sinister quotation followed, this time from King David: “I will pursue my enemies and destroy them. And I will not turn back until they are wiped out.”
In priestly fashion, he promised the Palestinians that Hamas would never rule in Gaza, a sure sign that terms will be dictated, not from any equal level, but the summit of victory.
Same tone struck
The same tone was struck for those “people of the region”: “In Gaza, in Beirut, in the streets of the entire area, the darkness is withdrawing and the light is rising.” The deciders are in charge.
US President Joe Biden mirrored the approach. He focused on the bloody imprint of Sinwar’s legacy (“responsible for the deaths of thousands of Israelis, Palestinians, Americans and citizens from over 30 countries”).
Israel had been right to “eliminate the leadership and military structure of Hamas.”
Like Netanyahu, Biden made his own paternal assessment about the fate of the Palestinian people, one perennially subject to others. A rotten egg had been removed. Rejoice, for others will be laid under over guidance.
“This is now the opportunity for a ‘day after’ in Gaza without Hamas in power, and for a political settlement that provides a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.”
The killing also prompted other assessments that say nothing about Palestinians, but everything about that all subsuming word of “terrorism”.
Israeli power had proved its point, suggesting the premise for resisting it had abated. It led to such remarks as those of Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to call it an end to “a reign of terror”, a point conveniently ignoring Israel’s own policy of ill-nourishment towards Palestinians since the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948.
Little context, history ‘irrelevant’
Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, boxing Sinwar as “a brutal murderer and terrorist who wanted to annihilate Israel and its people” told Hamas to “lay down its weapons”, suggesting that the suffering of those in Gaza had been exclusive and unilateral to the organisation.
Context, in short, was inconsequential, history an irrelevant past.
As these statements were being made, the Israeli strikes on Gaza have continued with unabated ferocity — and Lebanon, as well as now Iran.
Civilians continue perishing by the families, as do the habitual displacements. In Netanyahu’s cabinet, the pro-settler faction remains ever present.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir nurses fantasies of ethnically displacing Palestinians from the Gaza Strip — something he euphemises as “voluntary departure”. He explicitly said as much at a rally in May. “This is moral, rational and humanitarian.”
That Sinwar would perish in conflict was not unexpected. The extraordinary violence of October 7 was always going to trigger an extraordinarily violent response, and was intended to do so from the outset.
Israel’s method of retaliation, rather than understanding the historical, exploitative savagery of Hamas, was to stubbornly cling to previous patterns: the use of superior military technology, vaunted intelligence, the decapitation of organisations, picking off central figures in adversarial entities, wish lists that rank well in the making of war and delight intelligence chiefs.
Brokering of durable peace ignored
The method says little in the brokering of durable peace, the notion of strategy, the skills of diplomacy. It ignores the terrible truth that harvests in such matters are almost always bitter.
“A number of Israeli moderates have considered this a chance to retreat from a military solution and seek a grand bargain that would conclude conflicts against Hamas, Hezbollah and ease conflict with Iran. It would also involve the return of the surviving hostages.”
Sinwar’s killing is mistakenly positioned as a chance to end the sequence of wars that have become an annexure of Israel’s existence.
In Biden’s words, he “was an insurmountable obstacle to achieving all of those goals [about achieving peace]. That obstacle no longer exists.” Such statements are made even as others are already readying to occupy leadership roles for the next war.
The same could be said about the recent killing of Hezbollah’s Hasan Nasrallah. In 1992, Abbas al-Musawi, then Hezbollah’s secretary-general, was slain along with his wife and son.
His replacement: the resourceful, charismatic Nasrallah. It was he who pushed on the endeavours of the late Fuad Shukr, an architect in acquiring the militant group’s vast stockpile of missiles. Like a savage pruning, such killings inspire fresh offshoots.
Ibrahim Al-Marashi of California State University, San Marcos, puts it better than most. “History shows every single Israeli assassination of a high-profile political or military operator, even after being initially hailed as a game-changing victory, eventually led to the killed leader being replaced by someone more determined, adept and hawkish.”
Seeking a grand bargain
With this in mind, a number of Israeli moderates have considered this a chance to retreat from a military solution and seek a grand bargain that would conclude conflicts against Hamas, Hezbollah and ease conflict with Iran.
It would also involve the return of the surviving hostages. Hardly the sort of thing that thrills the likes of Ben-Gvir and his belligerent comrade in arms, Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich. The customary language of “degrade”, “annihilate” and “destroy” feature with dull regularity.
This is the State of Judah doing battle against the forces of night. It is, however, a night that risks blackening all, a harvest that promises another Sinwar and another Nasrallah. Guns, drones, and bombs only go so far.
Dr Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures in international politics at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. This article was first published by Eureka Street and is republished with the author’s permission.
