Can Targeted Killings of Hamas and Hizbullah Leaders Effect Real Change?

[Social Media]

 

The common belief about targeted assassinations in the fight against militant groups is often dismissive, rooted in the idea that such actions don’t lead to substantial or lasting outcomes. Over the past year, Israel has engaged in targeted killings of leaders from Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group, and Hizbullah, a Lebanese Shia militia. Each operation triggers discussions among analysts and officials, who frequently predict that these organizations will regroup and restore their former strength. This skepticism isn’t unwarranted, given Israel’s historical experience. However, there are reasons to believe that this time, the situation might differ significantly.

 

There are three key arguments typically made against the effectiveness of targeted killings. The first of these is historical. Audrey Kurth Cronin, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, analyzed the fate of over 450 terrorist organizations, finding that "decapitation" or leader-targeting operations generally prove effective only against small, recently-formed groups without established mechanisms for leadership succession. However, neither Hamas nor Hizbullah fits this description.

 

The historical context, diverges sharply from current circumstances.  In the present situation, Israel's campaign against Hizbullah has been relentless. By the time Israel killed Nasrallah on September 27th, the group’s highest military leadership had been decimated. Nasrallah’s presumed successor, Hashem Safieddine, and potentially Wafiq Safa, an influential enforcer within Hizbullah, were also targeted. Even the most resilient organization would face challenges after losing multiple tiers of its leadership.

 

Hamas, too, has suffered significant losses in the past year, with not only two of its leaders but also its military chief, his deputy, and numerous lower-ranking commanders killed. Alongside these losses, both groups have endured thousands of casualties in Israel’s attacks. Nasrallah and Sinwar were uniquely influential, each wielding substantial power and enjoying considerable support from Iran. Their successors may not command the same loyalty or resources, weakening their organizations structurally.

 

A second argument concerns the groups' established institutional roles. Before the recent escalations, Hamas governed Gaza, employing tens of thousands of civil servants, while Hizbullah functioned almost as a "state within a state" in Lebanon, providing jobs, managing economic resources, and even operating its own bank. Unlike purely militant groups, Hamas and Hizbullah are deeply entrenched political and economic entities. Yet, Israel’s sustained campaign has dramatically undermined these roots.

 

In Gaza, for example, the local economy, which once provided Hamas with substantial tax revenue, lies in tatters. The monopoly Hamas once held on violence and resource control has been disrupted by increasingly powerful gangs, who now run protection rackets and control some aid distributions.

 

In Lebanon, Hizbullah's previously robust financial networks have weakened. Fighters now complain of delayed paychecks, while displaced civilians express frustration over inadequate assistance. In Lebanon’s patronage-based political system, any erosion of resources and benefits weakens a group’s support base, suggesting that Hizbullah’s once-dominant position may be under significant strain.

 

The third argument is philosophical. European Union foreign-policy chief Josep Borrell remarked in February, "Hamas is an idea, and you don’t kill an idea," a sentiment echoed by the head of the Arab League about Hizbullah. However, historical examples challenge this perspective. A decade ago, analysts made similar claims about Islamic State (IS), which, despite its initial power and territory, was decimated by a coalition that killed tens of thousands of fighters. The caliphate IS declared lasted less than four years before being dismantled. Likewise, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood—a century-old organization—was severely weakened when Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi overthrew Egypt’s Brotherhood-aligned president, leading to mass arrests, asset seizures, and organizational collapse.

 

While neither IS nor the Muslim Brotherhood was entirely eliminated, both were largely marginalized and rendered unable to exert the power they once held. This suggests that while ideas may be hard to eradicate, organizations can be crippled with sufficient violence and repression, pushing them into obscurity for years.

 

Hamas and Hizbullah are not merely ideas but institutions with tangible structures, resources, and influence. Whether or not they retain their current standing remains uncertain. If Hizbullah is weakened, Lebanon’s Shia community may face internal conflicts, and while Palestinian resistance may persist as long as there is no state, it is not guaranteed to be under Hamas’ banner.

 

Based on a report from The Economist 2024-10-29

 

 

 

[Purdey]

Targeted assassinations hopefully will cut the head off the snake and lead to people thinking twice before taking over the reins.

[jippytum]

For the citizens of Israel  

absolutely. 

 

[renaissanc]

No. Real change will come when the Palestinians get so fed up with the death (of family members and friends), destruction, poverty, unhappiness, deprivation, starvation, etc., and demand that Hamas / Hezbollah / Iran get out of their lives. When will this happen? It seems to take decades in civil wars. In Angola, it took 30 years. Northern Ireland? A long time. Sudan?  First Sudanese Civil War (1955–1972) Second Sudanese Civil War (1983–2005) Third Sudanese civil war (2023–present). Don't hold your breath in other words.

[john donson]

Hizbullah?

HErzbullah?

Himbullah

[harryviking]

As long as you have Iran feeding these terror organizations, nothing will ever be solved. Iran is the heart that pumps bad blood through the whole of the middle east.  

[thaipo7]

1 hour ago, harryviking said:

As long as you have Iran feeding these terror organizations, nothing will ever be solved. Iran is the heart that pumps bad blood through the whole of the middle east.  

Correct and the Marxist Left in the US supports them.  Biden/Harris and she will continue this.

[billd766]

IMHO it will never happen all the time that Israel refuses to recognise that the Palestinians have the same rights to exist as the Israeli's.

 

So many posters complain that it is the fault of Iran for supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, but none of them complain about the USA supporting Israel.

 

Again, IMHO, it is not the fault of either the Israeli OR the Palestinian people, but it IS the fault of their leaders.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, harryviking said:

As long as you have Iran feeding these terror organizations, nothing will ever be solved. Iran is the heart that pumps bad blood through the whole of the middle east.  

And as long as you have the USA feeding the Israeli government you have the the same problem.

 

IMHO the problem with the USA is akin to a person riding on the back of a hungry tiger.

 

It is not so hard to get on, but almost impossible to get off safely.

[JonnyF]

Every little helps.

[rickudon]

Next target, Netanyahu. Just might end the middle east wars.

[Tug]

Yes it does.

[Cryingdick]

No. Every last person in Gaza needs to come out and surrender and let the entire place be cleared.