No, Sinwar did not die as a ‘martyr’; he died as a fearful fugitive

A recent controversial tweet posted by the Italian State TV news channel “RAI TG3” regarding Sinwar’s killing by the IDF generated strong criticism and forced the RAI 3 editorial staff to delete it and apologize to the public.
The tweet said:
“After killing Sinwar, making him a martyr in the eyes of millions of people, Israel is trying to discredit his image by releasing a video showing the Hamas leader and his family taking refuge in a tunnel before the massacre on October 7”.
A few hours later, TG3 tweeted the following:
“This morning, a tweet was posted by TG3 that accompanied the link to our report on the new images released by Israel of Hamas leader Yahia Sinwar during preparations for the October 7 massacre. The report also explained that by releasing these images, Israel intended to counter the ongoing attempt to paint Sinwar as a martyr, rather than a terrorist. Unfortunately, the text of the tweet was written in a rush, completely incorrect and misleading with respect to our intentions. We apologize to our viewers and readers and to anyone who felt offended”.
The question that spontaneously arises is: why does a professional editorial team belonging to a state-owned news channel, rush to publish a post on such a delicate issue in an incorrect and misleading way?
In any case, putting the controversy aside, there is one useful point that emerges from all this: “the “martyrdom of Yahya Sinwar caused by Israel”, as claimed by many among the media, not just in Italy.
Did Sinwar really die as a martyr? Did the video of the terrorist throwing a wooden board at the drone shortly before death backfire on Israel, depicting Sinwar as a “freedom fighter” using a common object against “Israeli technology”? Is Israel really trying to “discredit” Sinwar’s image?
It is important to remember that the public interprets images based on their cognitive abilities, ideological positions, and interests. Potentially, there can be as many interpretations as people in front of the screen.
If I want to see someone as a martyr, I will, despite the images. It happened with Usama Bin Laden, even though the body was never shown. It recently happened with Hassan Nasrallah, who is considered a martyr by his supporters.
Of course, some images may encourage and strengthen such feelings and positions, but it depends on the type of image, the individual/s involved, and the context.
Let’s therefore briefly examine a few of the ideas laid out there:
1- “Israel created a martyr by eliminating Sinwar”
This first statement doesn’t make much sense. Terrorists are killed, plain and simple. It’s part of the terror and counter-terror “game”. The martyr representation solely depends on their supporters and sympathizers. There is a very long list of terrorist leaders who were killed, such as Usama Bin Laden, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, Imad Mughniyeh, Hassan Nasrallah, Ismail Haniyeh, Shamil Basayev, Sheikh Yasin, just to quote a few. Did they become martyr figures? Some did, some didn’t. Practically speaking, did that make a difference? Not really.
2- “The video of Sinwar’s last moments before death, showing him throwing the wooden board at the IDF drone backfired on Israel”.
Regarding this second statement, if we want to make a strict and “orthodox” reading of these images from a visual communication perspective, it may have been more useful not to show them because indeed there will be people who will use them to present Sinwar as a “martyr who resisted until the end” and “fought against IDF technology with a piece of wood”.
However, is this the reality? No, because that is just a fraction, a moment of the whole event. Sinwar was trying to flee to the UN-protected area near the coast and then escape from Gaza. He was found with money, and a passport (not belonging to him). Instead of engaging with the IDF, he ran inside the building while his men exchanged fire with the soldiers. Therefore, he did not die as “a martyr”, he died as a fugitive. Those who want to see him as a martyr will do so, despite the images.
3 – “Israel is trying to discredit Sinwar’s image by showing him escaping in the tunnels”.
Isn’t that what he did? Didn’t he hide like a rabbit? Didn’t he use Israeli hostages and Palestinian civilians as human shields? Didn’t Hamas hide its facilities and weapons under and inside hospitals and schools? Is it really possible to “discredit” Sinwar? A terrorist and mass murderer? To express such an idea implies having a high or at least decent opinion of the terrorist leader and this says it all.
Let’s discredit him even more and expose how the bag carried by Sinwar’s wife in recently published footage of the family was a $32,000 Birkin, while Gaza residents have no money for basic needs. All in the name of “resistance” of course! How about that?
4- “The IDF elimination of Sinwar was not the consequence of a random encounter with an IDF training platoon. It was a planned special operation that is being depicted by Israel as fortuitous”.
Evidently, for some it’s unacceptable that “the legendary resistance leader” was killed after a random exchange of fire with an IDF infantry unit that was training in Rafah, rather than in some coordinated operation conducted by the special forces and the Shin Bet.
However, does it really make a difference? The IDF unit that eliminated Sinwar is not a bunch of kids playing guns. It’s a highly trained unit with outstanding capacities. Otherwise, they would not be training in Rafah. If Sinwar had been eliminated by the Sayeret Matkal or some other special ops unit, would the outcome have been any different? No. Sinwar still died as a fugitive hiding behind his own men.
In conclusion, Sinwar is not a martyr, he did not die like a martyr, and Israel doesn’t need to discredit someone whose life was already a disgrace, for himself, and for everyone else. It is not a matter of what Sinwar was, because that is very clear. It is a matter of what others want to see.