Hamas Chief Ismail Haniyeh gestures as he delivers a speech over U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, in Gaza City December 7, 2017. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem/File Photo
Hamas Leader Ismail Haniyeh Killed in Iran
Diplomatic Role and Leadership
Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas, was killed in Iran. Known for his tough-talking demeanor, Haniyeh served as the face of the Palestinian group’s international diplomacy amidst the ongoing conflict in Gaza, where three of his sons were recently killed in an Israeli airstrike. Despite his rhetoric, many diplomats viewed Haniyeh as a moderate compared to the more hardline members of Hamas within Gaza.
Appointment and Diplomatic Efforts
Appointed as the leader of Hamas in 2017, Haniyeh operated from Turkey and Doha, Qatar, circumventing the travel restrictions of the blockaded Gaza Strip. This mobility allowed him to engage in ceasefire negotiations and maintain communication with Hamas’ ally, Iran. Following the October 7 raid by Hamas fighters, which resulted in 1,200 Israeli casualties and the taking of around 250 hostages, Haniyeh declared on Al Jazeera, “All the agreements of normalization that you (Arab states) signed with (Israel) will not end this conflict.”
Israeli Response and Casualties
In response to the Hamas raid, Israel launched a military campaign that, according to Gaza health authorities, has resulted in over 39,000 deaths and extensive destruction in the enclave. In May, the International Criminal Court prosecutor’s office sought arrest warrants for three Hamas leaders, including Haniyeh, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on allegations of war crimes, which both Israeli and Palestinian leaders have dismissed.
Personal Losses and Impact on Truce Talks
On April 10, an Israeli airstrike killed three of Haniyeh’s sons—Hazem, Amir, and Mohammad—as well as four of his grandchildren. Haniyeh denied Israeli claims that his sons were fighters, emphasizing that the interests of the Palestinian people were paramount. He remarked, “All our people and all the families of Gaza residents have paid a heavy price with the blood of their children, and I am one of them,” acknowledging the loss of at least 60 family members.
Perceived Pragmatism
Despite his public statements, Haniyeh was viewed by Arab diplomats and officials as relatively pragmatic compared to more hardline figures within Gaza. He and his predecessor, Khaled Meshaal, had engaged in regional talks regarding a Qatari-brokered ceasefire deal with Israel, which included potential exchanges of hostages for Palestinians in Israeli jails and increased aid for Gaza.
Hamas Leadership and Strategy
Israel considers the entire Hamas leadership as terrorists, accusing Haniyeh, Meshaal, and others of orchestrating the organization’s activities. It remains unclear how much Haniyeh knew about the October 7 assault, which was a closely guarded plan by Hamas’ military council in Gaza. Nonetheless, Haniyeh played a significant role in enhancing Hamas’ military capabilities through ties with Iran.
Diplomatic Engagements and Historical Context
Haniyeh’s diplomatic efforts included meetings with Egyptian officials, and in early November, he met with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Reports suggest that Khamenei informed Haniyeh that Iran would not enter the war, as they were not forewarned of the attack.
As a student activist, Haniyeh joined Hamas during the First Palestinian Intifada in 1987 and became a close associate of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmad Yassin. Haniyeh was an early advocate for Hamas’ involvement in politics, leading to his role as Palestinian prime minister after the group’s parliamentary victory in 2006.
Conclusion
Haniyeh’s tenure as Hamas leader was marked by a blend of militant resistance and diplomatic negotiation, balancing his public stance with efforts to engage regional powers in ceasefire talks and humanitarian arrangements. His leadership in both the political and military arenas of Hamas underscores the complex dynamics within the organization and its relations with regional and international stakeholders.
COMMENTS