Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar would have celebrated his death, were he alive to see it, and the world should do the same — if for very different reasons.
Israel confirmed the 62-year-old’s killing through DNA tests on Thursday, after he was shot, together with two other men, in an encounter with Israeli soldiers in southern Gaza. Sinwar had seen himself as a modern-day Saladin — the leader who united a fractious Arab world and recaptured Jerusalem from Christian crusaders in 1187 — as well as a willing “martyr” to the Palestinian cause.
Yet Saladin was everything Sinwar was not: A judicious military commander and chivalrous statesman, who was respectful of human life and religious difference. Far from a Saladin or any kind of savior, Sinwar brought catastrophe on his own people in a calculated act that used their mass suffering as a catalyst to spark a regional war against Israel. He was no martyr. He was a monster.
Sinwar’s passing could be turned into an opportunity for Palestinians. He spent years diverting vast sums of aid money to build tunnels, deep under Gaza’s overcrowded cities, in preparation for the war he precipitated with last October’s attack on Israel. Palestinian civilians were not invited to shelter in his tunnels from the bombardment he knew would follow. Their role was to die above ground.
His followers could now put an end to that insanity by releasing the remaining Israeli hostages they hold, negotiate what would amount to clemency in surrender, and exile. They shared a cause with Sinwar and followed him to the darkest of places. Yet this was, ultimately, his war. He was its architect and reportedly did not share details of its planning or timing with either Hamas’ then-political leadership in Qatar or his sponsors in Iran.
There would be a precedent for such a change of heart, should Hamas now sue for peace. While in an Israeli prison for killing alleged collaborators, Sinwar famously held out so long against a 2011 deal to free more than 1,000 Palestinians — including himself — for a single Israeli soldier, that the prison put him in solitary confinement to allow negotiations to conclude, which they did with less intransigent Hamas leaders. (Sinwar had wanted even those found guilty of the worst attacks on Israelis to be added to the swap.) Palestinians in Gaza would only thank Sinwar’s successors if they follow suit and get a ceasefire deal agreed now that he is gone.
Sinwar’s death is equally a huge win for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and one he should bank quickly. The risk of revenge killing against the remaining hostages that Hamas holds is high.
Israel should signal to Hamas and Gaza’s bruised ceasefire mediators that it sees Sinwar’s removal as a chance to end the fighting. Netanyahu could declare victory. He could then follow up by calling on Hezbollah to honor its claim that it would stop attacking Israel should a ceasefire be reached in Gaza. He could offer to withdraw Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, so long as Hezbollah does the same — as a UN resolution ordered this vast, unofficial armed militia to do back in 2006.
The net result would be that Netanyahu achieves his stated war aims on both fronts — returning the hostages from Gaza, creating conditions for evacuated Israelis to return home in the north and wreaking unprecedented damage to both groups.
Sadly, this is not the most likely outcome. It is impossible to know what the state of mind among Sinwar’s successors would be, but some would surely argue for slaughtering the hostages and fighting on. Meanwhile, Netanyahu could use Sinwar’s death as evidence that his bare-knuckled use of force to impose a new order on the region is working. The reality is that Israel would not be able to achieve the permanent security it craves until it has settled its Palestinian question one way or another — but it is by now clear that is not a limitation Netanyahu accepts.
Rather than de-escalate, he might choose to double down on Israel’s military efforts in Gaza, Lebanon and against Iran. None of these wars offer an easy exit, promising lengthy occupations and potentially severe loss of life and prosperity for Israel. Indeed, he would risk ultimately failing in all those war aims in the attempt to make them absolute.
If that is the path Netanyahu chooses, he would give Sinwar, in death, the war that he was unable to secure in life.
Marc Champion is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe, Russia and the Middle East. He was previously Istanbul bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS