Simone Derayeh

The recent killing of Ismail Haniyeh, a prominent leader of Hamas, by Israel inside Iran has been framed by some as the loss of a peace advocate, calling him the chief negotiator for Hamas.

However, this portrayal starkly contrasts with the reality of Haniyeh’s actions and motivations. His calls for a ceasefire were not driven by a genuine desire for peace but rather by strategic necessity in the face of overwhelming Israeli retaliation.

Ismail Haniyeh, a senior political leader of Hamas, played a pivotal role in the organization’s militant activities. Hamas, founded in 1987, is a Palestinian Islamist group that governs the Gaza Strip and is designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, and the European Union. Haniyeh held various leadership roles, including serving as Prime Minister, and was deeply involved in orchestrating and supporting attacks against Israel.

The true nature of Haniyeh’s recent advocacy for a ceasefire becomes clear when viewed in the context of the events following the October 7th terrorist attack on Israel. On that day, Hamas launched a brutal and unprovoked assault intentionally targeting Israeli civilians and children, resulting in numerous casualties. The attack exemplified Hamas’ ongoing commitment to violence and its refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

In the aftermath, Israel responded with decisive military action aimed at crippling Hamas’ capabilities and protecting its citizens. This retaliation has significantly weakened Hamas, leaving the group in a dire situation. It was in this context that Haniyeh’s calls for a ceasefire emerged, not as a gesture of peace, but as a desperate attempt to halt the Israeli offensive and regroup.

In the wake of his death, Islamic Republic state media and officials have attempted to recast Haniyeh as a peace hero. This narrative is a blatant manipulation, aimed at garnering sympathy and support for Hamas while vilifying Israel.

Hours after the attack that killed Haniyeh and his boduyguard in Tehran, Trita Parsi wrote a tweet, suggesting that Haniyeh’s death might undermine diplomatic efforts, which feeds into this distorted portrayal. Parsi has been known for his rhetoric often aligning with the narratives of the Islamic Republic, which raises questions about the objectivity of his commentary.

The Wall Street Journal’s headline, “Strike in Iran Kills Hamas’s Chief Negotiator,” also misleadingly emphasizes Haniyeh’s role in advocating for a ceasefire. However, the true motivation behind his calls was far from peaceful intentions. It was a tactical move to stop the bleeding inflicted by Israel’s justified military response to Hamas’ aggression. The article, co-written by Aresu Eqbali, is reflective of her previous work, which used language closely reflecting the narrative of the Islamic Republic, as I have noted in another article in Apadana Telegraph.

Haniyeh’s ceasefire calls were a strategic maneuver to avoid further losses and regain strength. Historically, Hamas has used ceasefires as opportunities to rebuild its arsenal, regroup, and prepare for future attacks against Israel. Haniyeh’s advocacy for a ceasefire must be seen in this light—as part of Hamas’ broader strategy of cyclical violence, rather than any genuine pursuit of peace.

The internal divisions within Hamas, as highlighted by the Wall Street Journal, also underscore the complexity of Haniyeh’s position. His clashes with other Hamas officials over ceasefire discussions were not about peace but about the tactical advantages and timing of such moves.

The elimination of Ismail Haniyeh by Israel removes a significant figure within Hamas who was never a true proponent of peace. His calls for a ceasefire were a reaction to the severe losses inflicted by Israel in response to the October 7th terrorist attack, not a change of heart or a move towards genuine reconciliation. The Iranian propaganda machine’s portrayal of Haniyeh as an advocate for a sustainable ceasefire is a cynical attempt to rewrite history and manipulate international perception.

Israel’s actions were a necessary defense against a group committed to its destruction, and Haniyeh’s death should be viewed in the context of Hamas’ ongoing terrorism and the need to protect Israeli civilians from such threats all in effort to bring sustainable peace to the region.