 Gaza Herald – For decades, Israel has relied on targeted assassinations as a central security and military strategy against Palestinian resistance movements, aiming to disrupt leadership structures, weaken operational capacity, and undermine morale. Yet across multiple historical phases, from the early resistance era to the latest genocide on Gaza, this policy has consistently failed to eliminate the broader phenomenon of resistance.
Following recent attempts to target senior commanders in Gaza, renewed debate has emerged over whether assassinations can meaningfully alter the trajectory of the genocide. Historical evidence suggests that while such attacks inflict immediate losses, they rarely produce lasting strategic outcomes.
Since the early 1970s, Israel has periodically occupied and paused its assassination campaigns depending on the intensity of Palestinian armed activity. During the First Intifada, hundreds of Palestinians were killed under this policy, with a focus primarily on field operatives. The Second Intifada marked a major escalation, including the targeting of senior political and military figures across Palestinian factions.
In 2006, Israel’s Supreme Court effectively legalized targeted killings under specific conditions, further institutionalizing the practice as part of official security doctrine.
However, major historical cases indicate that the removal of key figures did not halt the continuity of armed resistance. The assassinations of prominent leaders such as Fathi al-Shiqaqi, Yahya Ayyash, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, and others were followed by organizational adaptation, rapid leadership replacement, and in some cases, intensified attacks.
In Gaza and the occupied West Bank alike, resistance structures have repeatedly demonstrated an ability to regenerate leadership and evolve operationally, even after high-profile losses. New armed formations have also emerged over time, reflecting a decentralized and adaptive model of resistance.
Analysts and commentators argue that this resilience is rooted not only in organizational structure but also in the broader political and social conditions that sustain support for resistance, which remain unchanged despite shifts in leadership.
Recent reactions following targeted strikes against senior commanders reiterated this pattern, with Palestinian voices emphasizing that the killing of individuals does not dismantle the underlying movement or its ideology.
While Israeli officials view assassinations as a deterrence mechanism and a tool to degrade adversaries, historical experience indicates that their strategic impact remains limited, as leadership losses are often followed by reorganization rather than collapse.
Ultimately, despite decades of targeted killings, the core trajectory of the war has remained largely unchanged: leaders may be removed, but the resistance continues to regenerate, adapt, and persist.
