Regarding the political assassinations carried out by Israel, which it has placed at the top of its priorities, I’d like to remind everyone of a few points:
- Sameh Asker
Firstly, World War I was sparked by a political assassination—the assassination of the Archduke of Austria. This destructive war claimed the lives of tens of millions and didn’t lead to a decisive and clear victory for any party. It weakened all sides involved—Russia among the Allies, and Turkey and Austria from the Central Powers. It also weakened Britain and France, leading to successive declarations of independence from their colonies, including Egypt, which witnessed the revolution of 1919 and achieved independence in 1922.
Secondly, U.S. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 during the peak of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. This did not harm the U.S. in any significant way, as he was promptly replaced by another president.
Thirdly, history has witnessed the emergence of religious extremist groups specializing in political assassinations, such as the Kharijites and Assassins (Hashashin) in Islam, and the Zealots and Sicarii in Judaism. However, these groups failed to establish a powerful state or to create any intellectual movement or renaissance of any kind.
Fourthly, numerous political assassinations did not drive countries or groups to change their policies or weaken them. The assassination of Gandhi did not put an end to the Indian-Pakistani peace project, the assassination of Sadat did not halt the Egyptian-Israeli peace process, and the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. did not end the struggle against white racism. In most cases, such political assassinations lead to a firmer adherence to the principles of the victim and a moral challenge to ensure their mission succeeds.
Fifthly, in recent history in the Middle East, dozens of leaders of the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance movements have been assassinated. However, these movements remain strong and well-rooted, connected on the ground, and continue to fight against the Zionist enemy in various ways, receiving support through different channels.
Sixthly, in Egypt, thousands of leaders and soldiers from the Egyptian police and military have been assassinated in a series of terrorist acts that have spanned from the 1970s to the present day. Despite this, these acts did not weaken the strength, unity, or support of the security forces. Instead, they gained deep expertise in dealing with such incidents and developed an understanding of the psychology of terrorism, enabling them to respond to it appropriately.
Philosophically, political assassination raises questions about the morals and values that drive perpetrators to commit such acts. Despite the brutality of war, there remains a glimmer of light or a window for political dialogue and peace. Political assassination breeds inherited hatred across generations, making peace elusive, and raises generations in a spirit of revolutionary revenge. This reality is evident in Palestine, where one of the reasons for the continued violence and war is the ongoing political assassinations that have occurred since the establishment of the State of Israel up to today.
Political assassination neither creates victory nor peace; it spreads fear and distrust, serving as a prelude to revolutionary acts of revenge. Fear is not exclusive to the weak but also to the strong, as a driving force behind their oppression is often a deep sense of fear.
Moreover, the strength of a resistance movement is not built by a single individual but is rather the product of a complex and diverse network of emotions, beliefs, ideologies, and convictions that generate military, human, and material power. The assassination of a single individual—whether a member or a leader—does not alter the core functioning of this network, which requires intellectual responses, moral projects, and peace and tolerance to properly absorb.
Israel’s overarching policy of political assassinations since its establishment has not brought it power. Rather, its strength is derived from just two factors: (1) American and Western support and (2) the internal religious and national conflicts among Arabs and Muslims. Beyond these, Israel is quite a fragile state with significant social weaknesses, especially due to its colonial nature. A detailed discussion on this would be extensive.
In general, wars are not won without good planning, military capability, adaptability, intelligent strategies that avoid creating excessive enemies or underestimating opponents, as well as social cohesion and a moral and ethical project to sustain oneself. Israel lacks most of these conditions. It consistently creates new enemies out of thin air, underestimates its opponents, and lacks a moral project that could prevent it from transgressing basic human norms and laws—such as killing children and women or committing acts of genocide.
In short: The Zionist policy of political assassination is not only morally and humanly flawed but also politically and militarily flawed. It represents one of the significant weaknesses of this entity and will eventually lead to its demise—whether by ending the occupation and achieving Palestinian independence, or by resulting in the destruction of the Israeli state itself through horrific massacres. Personally, I do not support the latter model, as I do not advocate massacres against civilians. The end of the occupation would suffice as a result of this Zionist recklessness, allowing for peace that we have been denied for the 76 years of Israel's existence.
-----
There's an additional model I'd like to bring to your attention: the case of Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who was assassinated in 2020.
Practically speaking, the Revolutionary Guard struck Israel twice after the man's assassination, and the transfer of lethal missiles to Yemen and Iraq also occurred after his death, not during his lifetime.
In essence, Soleimani's assassination did not weaken the Revolutionary Guard.
