There is little argument that Ismail Haniyeh deserved to be killed. As a leader of Hamas, he helped orchestrate the group’s terrorist strategies, culminating in the horrific massacre on October 7. His elimination was not only a reckoning for past atrocities, but a preemptive strike against future threats as well.
Yet, ten days following the Mossad’s reported assassination of Haniyeh, a haunting question lingers: Did Israel achieve the outcome it anticipated? Was his death truly worth the precarious position Israel now finds itself in – anxiously bracing for an Iranian and Hezbollah retaliation that looms like a shadow over the nation?
Almost all flights in and out of Israel have been canceled indefinitely, and the economy, already suffering as a result of the war in Gaza, is expected to further deteriorate in the event of a larger war in the North. In the Finance Ministry, the uncertainty is great with officials there predicting that in the event of a larger conflict, damage to infrastructure, businesses, import and export of goods and more will be unlike anything seen before in the State of Israel.
Ironically, Iran’s strategy of suspense has inflicted considerable harm without firing a single shot. Millions of Israelis live in a heightened state of anxiety, caught in a relentless cycle of “will they or won’t they” that amplifies an unbearable tension.
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah shrewdly acknowledged that the suspense itself is an attack. Reflect on this: just by threatening Israel, Iran and Hezbollah have brought international travel to a standstill, have led the Americans to divert significant forces to the region and have put Israel on the highest level of alert since Oct. 7.
THE HARD truth is that this situation is the new normal and Israelis need to get used to it. Every time the Jewish state will attack somewhere in the region now, it needs to take into consideration the possibility that Iran will threaten to attack. This means that the conflict is no longer just with proxies and along Israel’s borders with Lebanon or Gaza, but it is much bigger and wider, with far-reaching implications.
The second consideration is the impact all of this has on general society. This state of constant warfare allows Israel’s enemies to play with the country as they want. By merely brandishing threats, they can sway international airlines and disrupt the nation without lifting a finger.
This is a power and strength that no country should have over Israel, and this influence is a dangerous testament to the country’s vulnerabilities. Yes, the Mossad can reportedly carry out amazing operations and secretly plant a bomb inside a highly-secure IRGC facility, but what about the long-term impact the assassination has had on Israel? Isn’t that a weapon just as strong?
So, we revisit the pivotal question: Was Haniyeh’s demise truly necessary at this juncture?
Perhaps it was. Maybe he was an obstacle to a hostage deal as some reports have indicated and his removal will now enable a deal to be finalized. We will soon find out, because if a deal has never been closer – as the White House claims – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will quickly be forced to make a decision.
The problem is that all indications are that this government does not want a deal, the one move that could de-escalate the region beyond the obvious benefit of saving the lives of the hostages who can still be saved and whose fate hangs in the balance with every day that passes. Bringing them home should anyway be the most important objective for Israel right now.
THE UNSETTLING truth is that some within the Israeli government might prefer this state of perpetual conflict. They seem less concerned with how Israel is perceived around the world or what the future will be of Israel’s relations with the United States. In any case, they are hoping that Donald Trump will win the election, a sentiment some ministers have no problem voicing publicly.
They believe that perpetual conflict is Israel’s story and that it is the reality we need to come to terms with. They don’t offer a normalization of existence in the region but rather a reality in which the stronger you are, the safer you are. It is about deterring the enemy for as long as possible, and then when that deterrence erodes, fighting as needed.
While this might be true, it is not easy to come to terms with. It means non-stop battles and wars of attrition as well as an enduring war in a country that used to strive for peace.
Politically, the ongoing conflict offers its own cynical advantages. Knesset coalitions are more inclined to stick together when there is an external enemy to fight and, as has been seen, the opposition has a tougher time getting its act together. Even politicians on the outside who wish to return, like former prime minister Naftali Bennett, are not presenting the Israeli people with anything real as an alternative. Instead, Bennett travels the world and interviews on CNN and ABC. Basically, from being an opposition to the government, he has become the government’s greatest spokesperson in the world.
What does this portend for Israel’s future? It remains unclear, but one thing seems sure – we have lost the initiative. Yes, we appear to be effective and good at eliminating terror chiefs like Haniyeh and Fuad Shukr in Beirut, but while that is important, these tactical victories seem to lack a strategic vision.
What is the larger plan that Israel wants out of this continued war and how will it chart a course to get there? That continues to be lacking – as we mark 10 months of conflict with no end in sight.
The writer is a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) and a former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post.