ISMAEL HANIYEH: THE COURAGE TO BE DESPISED
Ismail Haniyeh was a Palestinian Muslim known for his gentle yet firm and profoundly reflective character. He dedicated years to teaching and guiding his students to put ideas and theories into practice and effectively apply their knowledge and skills to survive. Ismael Haniyeh was a victim of targeted assassination, a practice the U.S. Constitution and international law prohibit the use of lethal force outside armed conflict zones unless it is used as a last resort against a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of grave harm. Despite differing priorities among negotiators, Haniyeh was at the table of diplomacy with his counterparts, representing all the forces of resistance and reducing the potential for non-cooperation.
No legitimate policymaking system can call itself just when it uses its power and principles to authorize extrajudicial killings. One cannot, in good conscience, support a government that assumes the right to determine who lives and who dies outside the bounds of judicial due process. No moral justification, no matter how well-constructed, can make such actions acceptable. It is a self-deception to believe that bombing adversaries or carrying out targeted assassinations will lead to peace. In truth, these actions push society further away from that goal.
When a government engages in these practices, it reveals a profound insincerity in its claims of pursuing peace. A state that operates behind walls — whether those walls are physical, ideological, or moral — cannot genuinely engage in diplomacy or commit to the rule of law. The structures that support such a world are built on lies, deception, and a denial of the rights of others.
For those who have spent their lives deeply embedded in such a system, the contradiction between the proclaimed values of freedom and justice and the reality of occupation and oppression becomes increasingly apparent. They come to understand that a society cannot thrive on its own freedoms while simultaneously denying those freedoms to other people. This contradiction is inherently unstable and unsustainable. Eventually, the truth will emerge, and the structures built on lies will crumble.
It is a fallacy to believe that one can support both the pursuit of freedom and the occupation of others. The two are fundamentally incompatible. The more society attempts to blur this distinction, the more it evades, denies, and deceives itself, the more it erodes its own moral integrity.
A government that sanctions extrajudicial killings and occupation cannot be a government that truly seeks peace. It is, instead, a government that perpetuates conflict, division, and injustice. True peace can only be achieved by extending the same freedoms and rights to others that one wishes for oneself. Anything less is a betrayal of humanity and a denial of the possibility of a just and lasting peace.Benjamin Netanyahu created another barrier to collaborating a permanent cease-fire in Gaza. he created another block on a road that holds many. He demolished a chance for permanent peace and refused to acknowledge the obstacles preventing practical cooperation among Palestinian individuals or groups. Haniyeh was no threat, and there was no justification for his assassination.
He embodied the essence of an academic with a commitment to intellectual growth and freedom. He understood what others have historically denied, “Freedom is not something granted to us by others. Instead, it is a fundamental right that we inherently possess, according to the principles of God and a just world.”
Ismael was born in the al-Shati refugee camp in the Gaza Strip in 1962 to parents expelled from Al-Jura. This Palestinian village was depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
He earned his degree from the Islamic University of Gaza in 1987, where he first became involved with the group Hamas, formed during the First Intifada against the Israeli occupation. His involvement led to his imprisonment after participating in protests. After his release in 1992, he was exiled to Lebanon, returning a year later to become a dean at Gaza’s Islamic University. Haniyeh was appointed to head a Hamas office in 1997 and rose in the organization's ranks.
Haniyeh found asylum in the Arab Gulf and lived in a modest neighborhood in Doha. He was equally comfortable engaging ordinary citizens as he did with international leaders. Often, he would sit for long hours, drinking strong black Arabic coffee and discussing the future of Palestine. Many diplomats viewed Haniyeh as one of Hamas's more pragmatic and moderate figures. Yet, he never limited himself to academic terms and intellectual considerations in his conversations. He spoke from the heart, using a unique analytical language and choosing words that captured the complexities of the political circumstances between the Arabs and Israelis, with a depth of understanding that eluded most others.
Haniyeh was blatantly honest and often reminded other Palestinians, “You are a product of your country and an object of its processes of preparation. As much as any man or woman under occupation, you must not think you can effectively engage in resistance unless you are prepared to pay a serious price. A man will have to die, in certain ways, to be part of a movement that needs to be free. He must be willing to give his life for the future in the distance.”
Ismail Haniyeh is free now and should be remembered as a true soldier who fought not because he hated what was in front of him but because he loved what was behind him. He should be remembered as one of many who wanted to survive, but only as men and women—no longer as captives or slaves in a life where basic freedoms are ignored. Can they?
Naturally, there will be those who speak ill of the dead. Ismail will undoubtedly fall victim to propaganda that skillfully and persistently uses disinformation, even making it possible to perceive heaven as hell. It makes no difference, though. There will always be voices willing to harm, belittle accomplishments, and judge souls. This is the way of the world and cannot be discounted, a fact we must face. Pay no heed. If the Creator stood before a million men with the light of a million lamps, only a few would genuinely see Him because truth is already alive in their hearts. Truth can only be seen by those who possess it within themselves. A higher power permits His presence. When you realize that God is a best friend who stands beside you when others cast stones, you will never be afraid, feel worthless, or feel alone. Haniyeh was far from worthless, and he was never alone.
Now Ismail Haniyeh is gone. On the 31st of July 2024, Haniyeh was assassinated by an explosive device planted in his guesthouse in Tehran by Israeli Mossad agents. He died immediately.
At the time of his death, he had been leading cease-fire negotiations for Hamas. He was a realist, fully aware that self-determination would be challenging to achieve with “the man in the middle.” Netanyahu’s intentions have always been consistently clear. He prefers to eradicate every single Palestinian Arab in the territories rather than allow for human rights for even a few. The man who persistently cited Hamas for orchestrating suicide bombings exonerated himself for targeted assassinations and a massive genocide that wiped multiple generations off the face of the earth.
Since 2006, there have reportedly been 149 Israeli children killed, compared to 28,540 Palestinian children. Additionally, 823 Israeli adult civilians have been killed, compared to approximately 23,000 adult Palestinian lives lost. In the course of targeted killings, two Israelis have been killed, compared to 478 Palestinians. Historically, individuals and organizations have relied on statistics provided by Israel’s military for the number of Israelis killed. These facts raise critical questions: who are the terrorists, and who are the victims? Who are the sinners, and who are the saints?
There are two sides to the story. We have an obligation to hear both. nearly 70 percent of the roughly 40,000 dead are women (about 11,000) or children (at least 16,300). Haniyeh was greatly assisted by the intercession of the Emir of Qatar, who initially was an ally but eventually became a friend. Already viewed by many as one of the most distinguished leaders of the Middle East, Haniyeh moved between Turkey and Qatar’s capital. This mobility allowed him to escape the travel restrictions of the blockaded Gaza Strip, enabling him to act as a negotiator in cease-fire talks.
He left Doha for his final trip on July 30, 2024. On July 31st, his life suddenly stopped, and the cause of his death sent shocks within individuals throughout the world, like the jolts felt while viewing a scene in a horror film. Now, we cannot hear him express his ideas and intentions in sets of meaningful words that he might have spoken.
The assassination, which took place during an official visit to Tehran for the inauguration of Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian, coincided with 300 days of Israel’s genocidal war on the Gaza Strip. Haniyeh was the chief Palestinian negotiator in indirect months-long cease-fire talks with the Israeli delegation, among them Mossad Chief David Barnea, whose organization executed the targeted kill operation. When you plot to kill a man, it costs nothing to be diplomatic.
The assassination of Hamas’ Political Bureau leader may have eliminated any chance for a lasting cease-fire in Gaza — on terms favorable to Palestinians — and left a huge political vacuum within the resistance movement.
Haniyeh was distinguished by his ability to bridge the vision gap between Hamas’ military and political wings, successfully liaising with various regional and international powers. He played a major role in advancing the interests of the resistance group in its three target regions: Gaza, the occupied West Bank, and abroad. His efforts included managing internal dynamics within Hamas and engaging with external entities to further the group’s strategic objectives.
This targeting of the head of the political movement reflects Israel’s systematic policy of assassinating leaders who can unify ranks and deepen relations with regional and international powers. This may also explain the reasoning behind Israel’s January 2nd assassination of Saleh al-Arouri in Beirut, a key Hamas figure who managed relations between Tehran, Ankara, Lebanon, and Doha.
Haniyeh’s assassination has created an urgent need to reorganize Hamas’ internal house — particularly urgent given Israel’s ongoing genocidal war on Gaza — and reconcile the disparate views of its leaders, such as Yahya Sinwar in Gaza and Khaled Mashaal abroad.
Perhaps one day, there will be a widespread, deeply held belief that the worst possible sin is the mutilation of a person’s spirit. This kind of harm destroys the essential foundation of trust. Without trust, every human action, no matter how justifiable or fair it appears, is vulnerable to being corrupted by harmful forms of conscientiousness.
Trust allows us to connect with others, cooperate, and build meaningful relationships. It gives us the confidence to share our thoughts, dreams, and vulnerabilities. When trust is undermined, every action we take, even those that seem justified or fair on the surface, becomes tainted. Without trust, even the most well-intentioned actions can be misinterpreted or twisted, ultimately leading to outrageous outcomes.
Most Israelis tend to excuse, condone, or simply ignore events that threaten their privileges, luxury homes, annual incomes, and day-to-day relationships with their peers. Like many Americans, they can justify the unjustifiable or deny their obligation to oppose what many consider impossible. It is the same emotional response found in the half-hearted negotiations about peace without equality and (above all) becomes apparent in the anesthetic message of the diplomat’s alienated eyes, which convey the undisclosed meaning that justice does not exist for Palestinian people — or if it does, then only in a way that cannot touch Israelis or make claims upon their political position.
How is it that those who claim to believe in freedom and democracy have not fully recognized the pervasive cynicism, condescension, outright racism, and severely anti-rational attitudes that Palestinians face continuously and openly, often justified under the guise of sovereignty?
However, a more profound issue lies in whether any Israeli city is prepared to engage in deep introspection and acknowledge the nuanced forms of hatred and terror that persist, masked as “security” or “defense.” This introspection requires confronting uncomfortable truths about the underlying prejudices and the impact of such policies on both societies, a step that is crucial for genuine progress and reconciliation.
I may not be an expert in international relations, but I understand that those at the bargaining table addressing Israeli and Palestinian affairs often lack in-depth knowledge of the situation. Moreover, they seem indifferent to how their actions can destroy human lives. The Palestinians, who are already suffering immensely, have faced repeated and profound devastation, each instance compounding their suffering and effectively stripping away their humanity, leading to a metaphorical death over and over again.
What words are used to negotiate the silence of a mother of four dead children killed by an American-made GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb with its precision-guided system operated by military aircraft? This bomb, incorporated with its Global Positioning System, allows for near-precision targeting, yet resulted in the loss of her children’s lives. What kind of definition is “reasonable” enough to justify the devastation of burning them all in a mass grave?
In such a tragic and horrific situation, the idea of finding words or justifications to address the immense pain and loss experienced by the mother is deeply troubling. The precision and advanced technology of the bomb only underscore the stark contrast between the intent of minimizing collateral damage and the brutal reality of innocent lives lost. The concept of “reasonable” becomes hollow and insufficient when confronted with such profound human suffering and grief. No words or definitions can adequately address or justify the enormity of the devastation experienced by the mother and her children.
Diplomacy is defined as the art of how nations, groups, or individuals conduct their affairs to safeguard their interests and promote their political, economic, cultural, or scientific relations while maintaining peaceful relationships. In this situation, diplomacy has failed. The starvation of children does not have “two sides.” It cannot be described in moderation, and no amount of discussion can justify a Palestinian child’s hunger. There are no reasonable words to negotiate that sort of pain.
A common psychological and social behavior is observed among Israelis and people in similar situations worldwide. Individuals often prioritize their comfort and stability over addressing or acknowledging injustices that do not directly affect them. People overlook or rationalize actions and events that might endanger their social and economic privileges. For Israelis, this could mean ignoring the negative impacts of policies on Palestinians because acknowledging them might challenge their comfortable lifestyles. This refers to the human tendency to find reasons to support or overlook ethically questionable actions if they maintain their way of life. For example, they support security measures that are brutal on Palestinians by convincing themselves that these measures are necessary for their safety.
The Israeli people must be ready to look into their souls and away from the demons of Zionism, admit to the subtleties of hate and terror that persist in the disguise of “security” or “defense.” The Israelis must be ready to admit that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's main aim is not the dismantling of Hamas but eliminating the Palestinian people.
Many Israelis, like others in similar situations worldwide, might deny their responsibility to oppose or speak out against the injustices they witness. This denial can stem from a sense of helplessness, believing the problem is too complex or impossible to change, or from a desire to avoid the discomfort of confronting these issues. Overall, this highlights a universal tendency to protect one’s own interests and comfort, even at the expense of justice and moral responsibility. It calls for self-awareness and the courage to challenge one’s own complicity in unjust systems.
I believe it is entirely appropriate to express immense gratitude to Ismail Haniyeh — a man who cared for the children in the West Bank and Gaza with the same love he had for his own. He believed in cultural assimilation and the miracle of equality. He gave himself unrelentingly and with a deep commitment to the dream that a just peace would one day become a reality.
I no longer feel awkward, as I once did for years, speaking of my attentiveness to those voices often labeled as “extremists” or “radicals.” We must be able to decipher fact from fiction. Eventually, the right faces will match their stories and the history they have left behind, allowing for the demand for human rights for those who are denied them.
We, however, must turn our attention to the voices less heard and review the events in the past. Reality becomes more vivid, and our vision transforms our lives, dissolves our inhibitions, reshapes our perceptions, and opens up new realms of freedom and dedication that we have never experienced.
In the long run, the struggle for freedom is truly about “truth.” There have been more than 40,000 dead Palestinians and 1000 Israelis. There must be a chapter missing in this history book; with 28,540 dead Palestinian children, it is time to turn the pages or question the version of events that have been fed to us.
Many young people do not like to think they will need consolation or the borrowed strength of older freedom fighters who are now deceased. This reluctance partly stems from not knowing the kind of man chronicled in this narrative. Most people do not listen to the words of the forces of opposition, those who are attempting to resist occupation and oppression. Yet, there are many who, in their internal struggle, are not hesitant to draw strength and courage from the previous generation.
When Nelson Mandela went to prison in South Africa, he found solace in the words of Thoreau. Similarly, when Ismail Haniyeh faced his lonely hours in Israeli jails, he turned to the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah, a Sunni Muslim scholar, and jurist known for his diplomatic involvement with the Ilkhanid ruler Ghazan Khan at the Battle of Marj al-Saffar, which ended the Mongol invasions of the Levant. Through these writings, Haniyeh found the strength to endure and continue his fight for freedom. “Don’t depend too much on anyone in this world because even your own shadow leaves you when you are in darkness.”
It is not easy to fully understand who Ismail Haniyeh was. But in part, he was a Palestinian, which is to have been made an outcast and a stranger, to have come to be exiled in your own country. To deny the outcast and the stranger among us is to deny the essence of justice itself.
Haniyeh was a man who lost more than most could imagine and dared to be despised. Unselfish dedication may be the only thing that can empower people to live by their beliefs. Without such reassurance of commitment, one wonders if the Palestinian people will ever find the will to overcome the dangers and warnings before them. These dangers are very real. Many have risked their lives, families, and friendships since the onset of the war on October 7, 2023. More will be obliged to take those risks in the years ahead. There is a price to pay and a great struggle between the body and the spirit. Haniyeh was a serious man. No Palestinian man or woman, suffocating from occupation, can escape the implications of the challenges before them.
Khalilah Sabra, Attorney // PhD in International Law // MAS Justice Center
