Should Haniyah have been killed?  

Yesterday, one of my readers asked me if I thought that the Tehran killing of Ismail Haniyah, the political head of Hamas, was justified or not?

Israel, of course, has not affirmed or denied responsibility, but either way the question begs more than a yes or no answer.

Many moons ago when I was a young officer in the US Army, at a military strategy course at Fort Gordon, Georgia (now renamed Fort Eisenhower given Gordon’s Confederate history) the instructor was very clear that an army never kills the leadership of the enemy. The logic is that at the end of the war when it is time to sign the documents of surrender, the leadership has to be alive so it can participate in that “ceremony” and the population of the defeated country will then accept that decision.

So, it was on September 2, 1945 on the deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo harbor, that the political leadership of Japan, properly attired in morning suits, met with Gen. Douglas MacArthur and the US allies to sign the protocols of surrender.

But what if an individual person in the political leadership of a country is, himself or herself, individually responsible for the planning of the death and destruction of thousands of people, and whose own hands have blood on them. And what if that person represents an entity that continues to hold hostages, continues to wage war and continually changes the terms of a negotiated settlement so that a ceasefire becomes virtually impossible to achieve?

That clearly describes Haniyah. Of course, there are those who say there are elements in the description that fit Prime Minister Netanyahu as well, specifically the lack of consistency regarding the terms of a settlement.  I offer no personal opinion on that here, but the situation with Bibi is completely different. He is the democratically elected head of government of a legitimate state, a member of the UN and recognized by the entire world except for some of our traditional enemies. So we can disagree with his decisions, but he certainly has the right to make them.

Finally, what if the person in question is not the head of the political leadership of a country, but rather part of a terrorist group that leads a rogue state not internationally recognized and even publicly committed to the destruction of Israel and the elimination of our existence in this land? Doesn’t that remove the protection that would normally be provided by accepted military strategy?

Looking at all of these “facts” and few of them are in dispute, the informed conclusion must be that if you can eliminate someone who heads an organization whose stated aim is to eliminate your presence on this earth, then it could be justified to kill him before he kills more of you.

So, was it justified?  It probably was. Was it wise to do it at a location in another sovereign country whose aim is also to eliminate us from this region? One could argue that as well.  However, Israel announced clearly right after the massacre of October 7^th, that those responsible for planning that event were walking dead men. Therefore, if Israel was responsible for the killing of Haniyah, it was simply exacting the price for his being responsible, along with others, for planning the massacre of over 1,200 of our people and the taking of over 250 hostages as well, half of whom remain in captivity.

Given that, we need to be grateful that one less enemy of our people is no longer around to do his dastardly work. And we can say, may his memory be blotted out for all time.