SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
People hold up a portrait of assassinated Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, Iran on July 31, 2024.
What Netanyahu can be sure he has not done is weaken Hamas.
In killing Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas’ political bureau in Tehran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sent the clearest message yet to Iran and the resistance movements that he wants a regional war.
In denying any involvement or foreknowledge of the drone strike that killed Haniyeh, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken further damaged Washington’s battered credibility.
US security officials were briefing journalists within an hour of the attack taking place that a senior member of the Axis of Resistance had been killed. They did not specify where or whom, and at first it was thought to be a second strike in Lebanon after the targeting of Fuad Shukr, Hezbollah’s most senior military commander and right-hand man to leader Hassan Nasrallah.
But it is certain that US security officials knew about the drone strike on Haniyeh within minutes of it happening. To cast Netanyahu as a leader in the grip of Jewish messianic fascists in ordering this strike, is only half of the story.
When I met him two decades ago as a political outcast dubbed an extremist by my liberal Zionist hosts, Netanyahu had only one idea to impart: Iran was the mothership. Hamas and Hezbollah were only its aircraft carriers.
Netanyahu’s lifelong belief that he will lead his nation to victory by crushing the Palestinian national cause and preventing a state from ever seeing the light of day can never be discounted.
Today, he might think he is on the cusp of his ultimate political achievement as Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, by dragging the U.S. and Britain into war with Iran.
Netanyahu sent other messages, too, in killing Haniyeh, who had no involvement in the Hamas attack on 7 October, and whose bureau was in charge of negotiations with mediators Qatar and Egypt.
Netanyahu has torn up negotiations and any thought of getting the hostages back alive. This should already have been obvious from the latest round of talks in Rome, where the Israeli side multiplied its conditions around phase one of the deal.
It was evident, too, from Netanyahu’s last visit to Rafah, where he vowed Israel would retain indefinite control of the Philadelphi corridor.
Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani has asked how negotiations can proceed when Israel has killed its negotiating counterpart.
Even without a ceasefire, Haniyeh was worth more to Israel alive than dead
In fact, Haniyeh was one member of a negotiating committee, which will carry on without him.
Al Thani’s barbed reaction was aimed at Netanyahu, who has done everything in his power to escalate regional tensions and to undermine the US administration’s position on a permanent ceasefire, and its consistent opposition to opening a second front in Lebanon.
In killing a mild man like Haniyeh, who did not hide underground but lived out in the open, and who dedicated his career to negotiations and engagement with the Islamic world in Qatar, Turkey and Iran, Israel has killed a leader it could one day need to negotiate a hudna, or long-term ceasefire.
In person, Haniyeh was amiable, mild-mannered, an attentive listener, modest—the complete diplomat. He was never one to speak ill of Fatah or Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
If, as now must be obvious even to the Israeli military, it will not be able to defeat or disable Hamas in Gaza, Israel will need people in Hamas to negotiate with. They have just killed one of them.
From a strategic point of view, Israel’s action is madness. This is not my word, but that used by former Israeli General Amiram Levin, who added, with some understatement, that the “security forces should’ve strongly opposed” the move.
Even without a ceasefire, Haniyeh was worth more to Israel alive than dead.
Israel could have plausibly argued to a western audience that it would not surrender Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant to the International Criminal Court in The Hague while another of those named in the ICC’s application for arrest warrants, Haniyeh, was free to live in Qatar and roam around the region.
Pressure would have inevitably been applied on Qatar to surrender him and expel the political bureau of Hamas.
Now that he is out of the equation, Israel has lost that defence. All this, Israel has achieved in killing Haniyeh.
What Netanyahu can be sure he has not done is weaken Hamas.
Quite the contrary. Haniyeh, a modest man who lost 60 members of his family, including sons and grandsons, to Israel in this war, will go down as one of Hamas’ greatest martyrs.
The moment Haniyeh learned that his sons and grandsons had been killed in cars struck by Israeli forces during Eid, he was visiting a hospital in Doha where injured Palestinians from Gaza were being treated.
He said only: “May God have mercy on them,” but he refused to interrupt his visit. The clip went viral, because it spoke more than words could have done about his ability to put the Palestinian cause above his personal grief as a father.
Israel has killed countless Hamas leaders and commanders, and the movement has only grown - in recruits, weaponry and political influence. Today, polls show that Hamas would win in the West Bank if free elections were allowed to take place there.
The Hamas that has resisted Israel’s attack on Gaza for 10 months is many times the size and capabilities of the Hamas in the days of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. The quadriplegic founder of Hamas was killed when an Israeli helicopter gunship fired a missile at him as he was being wheeled from Fajr prayers in Gaza. Haniyeh was his chief of staff. That assassination was internationally condemned.
The Israeli military knows the truth: that killing Haniyeh was last thing they should be doing if they want to see any of their hostages back alive
Hamas’ stock has risen, not fallen, in Palestine and the Arab and Muslim world since the 7 October attack. This is the only reason why the 88-year-old Abbas, who has continuously torn up reconciliation agreements, paid homage on Wednesday to his slain rival.
Abbas condemned the killing as “a cowardly act and a dangerous development”, and called on Palestinians to unite. Abbas spoke out of fear and political necessity, not out of any love for Hamas.
Within days of a reconciliation agreement among Palestinian factions negotiated in Beijing, Abbas’ security forces tried and failed to arrest an injured commander of the Tulkarm Battalion from a hospital in the occupied West Bank.
So you can be absolutely sure that Abbas has no intention of unifying Fatah with the other Palestinian factions. Fatah’s negotiator in Beijing might have been sincere, but for Abbas, Beijing was for show only. It made no difference on the ground in the occupied West Bank.
Nor is it a coincidence that Haniyeh’s assassination was ordered within a day of Israeli fascists and far-right members of the Knesset breaking into a detention facility in an attempt to prevent soldiers from being arrested for raping a Palestinian prisoner.
Setting fire to the region is Netanyahu’s only response to the bushfire that is breaking out at home and on his doorstep.
Hundreds of detainees have emerged with harrowing accounts of the notorious Sde Teiman detention centre. Middle East Eye first reported on how iron bars, electric shocks, dogs and cigarette burns were used in torturing Palestinian detainees at Israeli detention centres.
Omar Mahmoud Abdel Qader Samoud, who was detained for more than 42 days, said one of the rooms in the facility was known as the “disco”.
“A soldier dragged me on the floor, naked and handcuffed, and placed me on a piece of rug,” Samoud told MEE. “The soldiers sprayed freezing cold water on me and placed a fan in front of me. They would leave me for a few days, without food or water or the possibility to get up and go to the bathroom. I urinated on myself and pleaded for mercy but they didn’t care.
“The soldiers would kick me on all parts of my body,” he added. “Imagine yourself naked, handcuffed on the floor with five or six soldiers kicking you with their boots, hitting you with weapons and bats. Then they asked me to sit up. How could I possibly sit up? When I couldn’t follow their orders they would beat me even harder. They completely smashed me. I thought this nightmare would never end.”
A month later, an anonymous doctor working at the same centre said limbs were amputated because of handcuff injuries, noting: “We are all complicit in breaking the law.”
No one was detained; nothing was investigated. But as pressure mounted from the ICC about war crimes in Gaza, alongside the ongoing genocide case at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Israeli military prosecutors felt obliged to act.
Israel could not argue that a domestic judicial process existed to examine such allegations of torture during detention, if the state did not use it. So nine soldiers accused of sexual abuse against a detainee, which led to him being hospitalised with serious injuries to his rectum, were arrested.
What happened next was a complete breakdown of the state, similar to the 2021 assault on Congress by Trump supporters.
The arrests were met by angry demonstrations at the gates of Sde Teiman, with several protesters temporarily breaching the gates. Among the protesters were reservist soldiers, as well as two far-right parliamentarians: Zvi Sukkot, a member of the Religious Zionist movement, and Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu of the Jewish Power party.
Police took three hours to arrive. Herzi Halevi, the army’s chief of general staff, had to break off a defence meeting on Israel’s response to the recent attack on the Golan Heights to deal with the crisis. The army and police each blamed each other for the breakdown in law and order.
For a time, the accused soldiers barricaded themselves into Sde Teiman and used pepper spray to defend themselves against arrest, before eventually being taken into custody.
When Hezbollah threatens to close Ben Gurion Airport, or knock out the Israeli electrical grid, these are not empty threats
It is a mistake often made by those who style themselves as friends of Israel to cast such scenes as a fight between moderates and the extreme messianic right. This is wholly illusory, for the “moderates” are fully on board with continuing the murderous Gaza campaign. The “moderates” voted for the recent Knesset bill that rejects the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Where they differ is means, rather than ends.
Israelis who cling to their western identity are past masters of seizing Palestinian land in salami slices - subtly, quietly, without great fuss; but patiently, one property, one street, one high court case at a time. They care about their image, about being called global pariahs, and about the label of apartheid or war crimes being pinned on them personally.
The religious Zionist right, on the other hand, don’t give a tinker’s cuss about world opinion or international courts. They want annexation of the West Bank now. The sooner it happens, the better.
Call it two-speed Zionism, but the goal is the same: a one-state solution in which the modern state of Israel dominates, if not overlays, the biblical Land of Israel, the land from the river to the sea.
But it is a mistake, too, to underplay the ever-deepening fractures within Israel, which are occurring in the middle of a major war.
Israel portrays itself to the outside world as the one functioning state in a neighbourhood of failed ones. You don’t have to build a state in Israel, Netanyahu once bragged to US politicians in one of his many appearances before Congress: “We’re already built.”
But that state is showing distinct signs of failing, too.
Napoleon and Hitler were at the height of their powers, and their respective armies had tamed Europe under their jackboots, when each dictator thought it would be a good idea to attack Russia.
So, too, is Netanyahu endangering everything Israel has achieved in establishing a strong state by openly creating the conditions for a regional war.
The Israeli military knows the truth: that killing Haniyeh was the last thing they should be doing if they want to see any of their hostages back alive. They know they are not ready to attack southern Lebanon, because they don’t have enough tanks or ammunition.
They know how well-armed Hezbollah, the Houthis and other resistance groups are, and how effective their rockets are. They know about geography and distances, and the vulnerability of Israel’s population and economy to war on five fronts simultaneously. When Hezbollah threatens to close Ben Gurion Airport, or knock out the Israeli electrical grid, these are not empty threats.
Israeli security establishments also know they are in danger of losing command and control over their troops, and if they give the order to withdraw, many units may not obey.
Israel under Netanyahu’s leadership is making the classic mistake of all colonial powers. It is overreaching in the messianic belief that the Jews really are God’s chosen people; that the Bible ordained all of what is happening now, and that Israel can achieve its goal of complete military victory.
It is precisely at this moment that it is at its most vulnerable, and that the project could collapse.
In the final years of apartheid, the South African regime went into hyperdrive. It decided to overthrow the government of Angola, install a puppet regime in Namibia, and attack Zimbabwe, Botswana and Zambia—all fruitless projects that could not stave off regime collapse. Netanyahu’s Israel is treading the same path.
For nothing other than self-preservation, those who understand this should act before Netanyahu involves them in a war they could not possibly stop, still less win.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
In killing Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas’ political bureau in Tehran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sent the clearest message yet to Iran and the resistance movements that he wants a regional war.
In denying any involvement or foreknowledge of the drone strike that killed Haniyeh, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken further damaged Washington’s battered credibility.
US security officials were briefing journalists within an hour of the attack taking place that a senior member of the Axis of Resistance had been killed. They did not specify where or whom, and at first it was thought to be a second strike in Lebanon after the targeting of Fuad Shukr, Hezbollah’s most senior military commander and right-hand man to leader Hassan Nasrallah.
But it is certain that US security officials knew about the drone strike on Haniyeh within minutes of it happening. To cast Netanyahu as a leader in the grip of Jewish messianic fascists in ordering this strike, is only half of the story.
When I met him two decades ago as a political outcast dubbed an extremist by my liberal Zionist hosts, Netanyahu had only one idea to impart: Iran was the mothership. Hamas and Hezbollah were only its aircraft carriers.
Netanyahu’s lifelong belief that he will lead his nation to victory by crushing the Palestinian national cause and preventing a state from ever seeing the light of day can never be discounted.
Today, he might think he is on the cusp of his ultimate political achievement as Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, by dragging the U.S. and Britain into war with Iran.
Netanyahu sent other messages, too, in killing Haniyeh, who had no involvement in the Hamas attack on 7 October, and whose bureau was in charge of negotiations with mediators Qatar and Egypt.
Netanyahu has torn up negotiations and any thought of getting the hostages back alive. This should already have been obvious from the latest round of talks in Rome, where the Israeli side multiplied its conditions around phase one of the deal.
It was evident, too, from Netanyahu’s last visit to Rafah, where he vowed Israel would retain indefinite control of the Philadelphi corridor.
Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani has asked how negotiations can proceed when Israel has killed its negotiating counterpart.
Even without a ceasefire, Haniyeh was worth more to Israel alive than dead
In fact, Haniyeh was one member of a negotiating committee, which will carry on without him.
Al Thani’s barbed reaction was aimed at Netanyahu, who has done everything in his power to escalate regional tensions and to undermine the US administration’s position on a permanent ceasefire, and its consistent opposition to opening a second front in Lebanon.
In killing a mild man like Haniyeh, who did not hide underground but lived out in the open, and who dedicated his career to negotiations and engagement with the Islamic world in Qatar, Turkey and Iran, Israel has killed a leader it could one day need to negotiate a hudna, or long-term ceasefire.
In person, Haniyeh was amiable, mild-mannered, an attentive listener, modest—the complete diplomat. He was never one to speak ill of Fatah or Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
If, as now must be obvious even to the Israeli military, it will not be able to defeat or disable Hamas in Gaza, Israel will need people in Hamas to negotiate with. They have just killed one of them.
From a strategic point of view, Israel’s action is madness. This is not my word, but that used by former Israeli General Amiram Levin, who added, with some understatement, that the “security forces should’ve strongly opposed” the move.
Even without a ceasefire, Haniyeh was worth more to Israel alive than dead.
Israel could have plausibly argued to a western audience that it would not surrender Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant to the International Criminal Court in The Hague while another of those named in the ICC’s application for arrest warrants, Haniyeh, was free to live in Qatar and roam around the region.
Pressure would have inevitably been applied on Qatar to surrender him and expel the political bureau of Hamas.
Now that he is out of the equation, Israel has lost that defence. All this, Israel has achieved in killing Haniyeh.
What Netanyahu can be sure he has not done is weaken Hamas.
Quite the contrary. Haniyeh, a modest man who lost 60 members of his family, including sons and grandsons, to Israel in this war, will go down as one of Hamas’ greatest martyrs.
The moment Haniyeh learned that his sons and grandsons had been killed in cars struck by Israeli forces during Eid, he was visiting a hospital in Doha where injured Palestinians from Gaza were being treated.
He said only: “May God have mercy on them,” but he refused to interrupt his visit. The clip went viral, because it spoke more than words could have done about his ability to put the Palestinian cause above his personal grief as a father.
Israel has killed countless Hamas leaders and commanders, and the movement has only grown - in recruits, weaponry and political influence. Today, polls show that Hamas would win in the West Bank if free elections were allowed to take place there.
The Hamas that has resisted Israel’s attack on Gaza for 10 months is many times the size and capabilities of the Hamas in the days of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. The quadriplegic founder of Hamas was killed when an Israeli helicopter gunship fired a missile at him as he was being wheeled from Fajr prayers in Gaza. Haniyeh was his chief of staff. That assassination was internationally condemned.
The Israeli military knows the truth: that killing Haniyeh was last thing they should be doing if they want to see any of their hostages back alive
Hamas’ stock has risen, not fallen, in Palestine and the Arab and Muslim world since the 7 October attack. This is the only reason why the 88-year-old Abbas, who has continuously torn up reconciliation agreements, paid homage on Wednesday to his slain rival.
Abbas condemned the killing as “a cowardly act and a dangerous development”, and called on Palestinians to unite. Abbas spoke out of fear and political necessity, not out of any love for Hamas.
Within days of a reconciliation agreement among Palestinian factions negotiated in Beijing, Abbas’ security forces tried and failed to arrest an injured commander of the Tulkarm Battalion from a hospital in the occupied West Bank.
So you can be absolutely sure that Abbas has no intention of unifying Fatah with the other Palestinian factions. Fatah’s negotiator in Beijing might have been sincere, but for Abbas, Beijing was for show only. It made no difference on the ground in the occupied West Bank.
Nor is it a coincidence that Haniyeh’s assassination was ordered within a day of Israeli fascists and far-right members of the Knesset breaking into a detention facility in an attempt to prevent soldiers from being arrested for raping a Palestinian prisoner.
Setting fire to the region is Netanyahu’s only response to the bushfire that is breaking out at home and on his doorstep.
Hundreds of detainees have emerged with harrowing accounts of the notorious Sde Teiman detention centre. Middle East Eye first reported on how iron bars, electric shocks, dogs and cigarette burns were used in torturing Palestinian detainees at Israeli detention centres.
Omar Mahmoud Abdel Qader Samoud, who was detained for more than 42 days, said one of the rooms in the facility was known as the “disco”.
“A soldier dragged me on the floor, naked and handcuffed, and placed me on a piece of rug,” Samoud told MEE. “The soldiers sprayed freezing cold water on me and placed a fan in front of me. They would leave me for a few days, without food or water or the possibility to get up and go to the bathroom. I urinated on myself and pleaded for mercy but they didn’t care.
“The soldiers would kick me on all parts of my body,” he added. “Imagine yourself naked, handcuffed on the floor with five or six soldiers kicking you with their boots, hitting you with weapons and bats. Then they asked me to sit up. How could I possibly sit up? When I couldn’t follow their orders they would beat me even harder. They completely smashed me. I thought this nightmare would never end.”
A month later, an anonymous doctor working at the same centre said limbs were amputated because of handcuff injuries, noting: “We are all complicit in breaking the law.”
No one was detained; nothing was investigated. But as pressure mounted from the ICC about war crimes in Gaza, alongside the ongoing genocide case at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Israeli military prosecutors felt obliged to act.
Israel could not argue that a domestic judicial process existed to examine such allegations of torture during detention, if the state did not use it. So nine soldiers accused of sexual abuse against a detainee, which led to him being hospitalised with serious injuries to his rectum, were arrested.
What happened next was a complete breakdown of the state, similar to the 2021 assault on Congress by Trump supporters.
The arrests were met by angry demonstrations at the gates of Sde Teiman, with several protesters temporarily breaching the gates. Among the protesters were reservist soldiers, as well as two far-right parliamentarians: Zvi Sukkot, a member of the Religious Zionist movement, and Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu of the Jewish Power party.
Police took three hours to arrive. Herzi Halevi, the army’s chief of general staff, had to break off a defence meeting on Israel’s response to the recent attack on the Golan Heights to deal with the crisis. The army and police each blamed each other for the breakdown in law and order.
For a time, the accused soldiers barricaded themselves into Sde Teiman and used pepper spray to defend themselves against arrest, before eventually being taken into custody.
When Hezbollah threatens to close Ben Gurion Airport, or knock out the Israeli electrical grid, these are not empty threats
It is a mistake often made by those who style themselves as friends of Israel to cast such scenes as a fight between moderates and the extreme messianic right. This is wholly illusory, for the “moderates” are fully on board with continuing the murderous Gaza campaign. The “moderates” voted for the recent Knesset bill that rejects the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Where they differ is means, rather than ends.
Israelis who cling to their western identity are past masters of seizing Palestinian land in salami slices - subtly, quietly, without great fuss; but patiently, one property, one street, one high court case at a time. They care about their image, about being called global pariahs, and about the label of apartheid or war crimes being pinned on them personally.
The religious Zionist right, on the other hand, don’t give a tinker’s cuss about world opinion or international courts. They want annexation of the West Bank now. The sooner it happens, the better.
Call it two-speed Zionism, but the goal is the same: a one-state solution in which the modern state of Israel dominates, if not overlays, the biblical Land of Israel, the land from the river to the sea.
But it is a mistake, too, to underplay the ever-deepening fractures within Israel, which are occurring in the middle of a major war.
Israel portrays itself to the outside world as the one functioning state in a neighbourhood of failed ones. You don’t have to build a state in Israel, Netanyahu once bragged to US politicians in one of his many appearances before Congress: “We’re already built.”
But that state is showing distinct signs of failing, too.
Napoleon and Hitler were at the height of their powers, and their respective armies had tamed Europe under their jackboots, when each dictator thought it would be a good idea to attack Russia.
So, too, is Netanyahu endangering everything Israel has achieved in establishing a strong state by openly creating the conditions for a regional war.
The Israeli military knows the truth: that killing Haniyeh was the last thing they should be doing if they want to see any of their hostages back alive. They know they are not ready to attack southern Lebanon, because they don’t have enough tanks or ammunition.
They know how well-armed Hezbollah, the Houthis and other resistance groups are, and how effective their rockets are. They know about geography and distances, and the vulnerability of Israel’s population and economy to war on five fronts simultaneously. When Hezbollah threatens to close Ben Gurion Airport, or knock out the Israeli electrical grid, these are not empty threats.
Israeli security establishments also know they are in danger of losing command and control over their troops, and if they give the order to withdraw, many units may not obey.
Israel under Netanyahu’s leadership is making the classic mistake of all colonial powers. It is overreaching in the messianic belief that the Jews really are God’s chosen people; that the Bible ordained all of what is happening now, and that Israel can achieve its goal of complete military victory.
It is precisely at this moment that it is at its most vulnerable, and that the project could collapse.
In the final years of apartheid, the South African regime went into hyperdrive. It decided to overthrow the government of Angola, install a puppet regime in Namibia, and attack Zimbabwe, Botswana and Zambia—all fruitless projects that could not stave off regime collapse. Netanyahu’s Israel is treading the same path.
For nothing other than self-preservation, those who understand this should act before Netanyahu involves them in a war they could not possibly stop, still less win.
In killing Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas’ political bureau in Tehran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sent the clearest message yet to Iran and the resistance movements that he wants a regional war.
In denying any involvement or foreknowledge of the drone strike that killed Haniyeh, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken further damaged Washington’s battered credibility.
US security officials were briefing journalists within an hour of the attack taking place that a senior member of the Axis of Resistance had been killed. They did not specify where or whom, and at first it was thought to be a second strike in Lebanon after the targeting of Fuad Shukr, Hezbollah’s most senior military commander and right-hand man to leader Hassan Nasrallah.
But it is certain that US security officials knew about the drone strike on Haniyeh within minutes of it happening. To cast Netanyahu as a leader in the grip of Jewish messianic fascists in ordering this strike, is only half of the story.
When I met him two decades ago as a political outcast dubbed an extremist by my liberal Zionist hosts, Netanyahu had only one idea to impart: Iran was the mothership. Hamas and Hezbollah were only its aircraft carriers.
Netanyahu’s lifelong belief that he will lead his nation to victory by crushing the Palestinian national cause and preventing a state from ever seeing the light of day can never be discounted.
Today, he might think he is on the cusp of his ultimate political achievement as Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, by dragging the U.S. and Britain into war with Iran.
Netanyahu sent other messages, too, in killing Haniyeh, who had no involvement in the Hamas attack on 7 October, and whose bureau was in charge of negotiations with mediators Qatar and Egypt.
Netanyahu has torn up negotiations and any thought of getting the hostages back alive. This should already have been obvious from the latest round of talks in Rome, where the Israeli side multiplied its conditions around phase one of the deal.
It was evident, too, from Netanyahu’s last visit to Rafah, where he vowed Israel would retain indefinite control of the Philadelphi corridor.
Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani has asked how negotiations can proceed when Israel has killed its negotiating counterpart.
Even without a ceasefire, Haniyeh was worth more to Israel alive than dead
In fact, Haniyeh was one member of a negotiating committee, which will carry on without him.
Al Thani’s barbed reaction was aimed at Netanyahu, who has done everything in his power to escalate regional tensions and to undermine the US administration’s position on a permanent ceasefire, and its consistent opposition to opening a second front in Lebanon.
In killing a mild man like Haniyeh, who did not hide underground but lived out in the open, and who dedicated his career to negotiations and engagement with the Islamic world in Qatar, Turkey and Iran, Israel has killed a leader it could one day need to negotiate a hudna, or long-term ceasefire.
In person, Haniyeh was amiable, mild-mannered, an attentive listener, modest—the complete diplomat. He was never one to speak ill of Fatah or Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
If, as now must be obvious even to the Israeli military, it will not be able to defeat or disable Hamas in Gaza, Israel will need people in Hamas to negotiate with. They have just killed one of them.
From a strategic point of view, Israel’s action is madness. This is not my word, but that used by former Israeli General Amiram Levin, who added, with some understatement, that the “security forces should’ve strongly opposed” the move.
Even without a ceasefire, Haniyeh was worth more to Israel alive than dead.
Israel could have plausibly argued to a western audience that it would not surrender Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant to the International Criminal Court in The Hague while another of those named in the ICC’s application for arrest warrants, Haniyeh, was free to live in Qatar and roam around the region.
Pressure would have inevitably been applied on Qatar to surrender him and expel the political bureau of Hamas.
Now that he is out of the equation, Israel has lost that defence. All this, Israel has achieved in killing Haniyeh.
What Netanyahu can be sure he has not done is weaken Hamas.
Quite the contrary. Haniyeh, a modest man who lost 60 members of his family, including sons and grandsons, to Israel in this war, will go down as one of Hamas’ greatest martyrs.
The moment Haniyeh learned that his sons and grandsons had been killed in cars struck by Israeli forces during Eid, he was visiting a hospital in Doha where injured Palestinians from Gaza were being treated.
He said only: “May God have mercy on them,” but he refused to interrupt his visit. The clip went viral, because it spoke more than words could have done about his ability to put the Palestinian cause above his personal grief as a father.
Israel has killed countless Hamas leaders and commanders, and the movement has only grown - in recruits, weaponry and political influence. Today, polls show that Hamas would win in the West Bank if free elections were allowed to take place there.
The Hamas that has resisted Israel’s attack on Gaza for 10 months is many times the size and capabilities of the Hamas in the days of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. The quadriplegic founder of Hamas was killed when an Israeli helicopter gunship fired a missile at him as he was being wheeled from Fajr prayers in Gaza. Haniyeh was his chief of staff. That assassination was internationally condemned.
The Israeli military knows the truth: that killing Haniyeh was last thing they should be doing if they want to see any of their hostages back alive
Hamas’ stock has risen, not fallen, in Palestine and the Arab and Muslim world since the 7 October attack. This is the only reason why the 88-year-old Abbas, who has continuously torn up reconciliation agreements, paid homage on Wednesday to his slain rival.
Abbas condemned the killing as “a cowardly act and a dangerous development”, and called on Palestinians to unite. Abbas spoke out of fear and political necessity, not out of any love for Hamas.
Within days of a reconciliation agreement among Palestinian factions negotiated in Beijing, Abbas’ security forces tried and failed to arrest an injured commander of the Tulkarm Battalion from a hospital in the occupied West Bank.
So you can be absolutely sure that Abbas has no intention of unifying Fatah with the other Palestinian factions. Fatah’s negotiator in Beijing might have been sincere, but for Abbas, Beijing was for show only. It made no difference on the ground in the occupied West Bank.
Nor is it a coincidence that Haniyeh’s assassination was ordered within a day of Israeli fascists and far-right members of the Knesset breaking into a detention facility in an attempt to prevent soldiers from being arrested for raping a Palestinian prisoner.
Setting fire to the region is Netanyahu’s only response to the bushfire that is breaking out at home and on his doorstep.
Hundreds of detainees have emerged with harrowing accounts of the notorious Sde Teiman detention centre. Middle East Eye first reported on how iron bars, electric shocks, dogs and cigarette burns were used in torturing Palestinian detainees at Israeli detention centres.
Omar Mahmoud Abdel Qader Samoud, who was detained for more than 42 days, said one of the rooms in the facility was known as the “disco”.
“A soldier dragged me on the floor, naked and handcuffed, and placed me on a piece of rug,” Samoud told MEE. “The soldiers sprayed freezing cold water on me and placed a fan in front of me. They would leave me for a few days, without food or water or the possibility to get up and go to the bathroom. I urinated on myself and pleaded for mercy but they didn’t care.
“The soldiers would kick me on all parts of my body,” he added. “Imagine yourself naked, handcuffed on the floor with five or six soldiers kicking you with their boots, hitting you with weapons and bats. Then they asked me to sit up. How could I possibly sit up? When I couldn’t follow their orders they would beat me even harder. They completely smashed me. I thought this nightmare would never end.”
A month later, an anonymous doctor working at the same centre said limbs were amputated because of handcuff injuries, noting: “We are all complicit in breaking the law.”
No one was detained; nothing was investigated. But as pressure mounted from the ICC about war crimes in Gaza, alongside the ongoing genocide case at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Israeli military prosecutors felt obliged to act.
Israel could not argue that a domestic judicial process existed to examine such allegations of torture during detention, if the state did not use it. So nine soldiers accused of sexual abuse against a detainee, which led to him being hospitalised with serious injuries to his rectum, were arrested.
What happened next was a complete breakdown of the state, similar to the 2021 assault on Congress by Trump supporters.
The arrests were met by angry demonstrations at the gates of Sde Teiman, with several protesters temporarily breaching the gates. Among the protesters were reservist soldiers, as well as two far-right parliamentarians: Zvi Sukkot, a member of the Religious Zionist movement, and Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu of the Jewish Power party.
Police took three hours to arrive. Herzi Halevi, the army’s chief of general staff, had to break off a defence meeting on Israel’s response to the recent attack on the Golan Heights to deal with the crisis. The army and police each blamed each other for the breakdown in law and order.
For a time, the accused soldiers barricaded themselves into Sde Teiman and used pepper spray to defend themselves against arrest, before eventually being taken into custody.
When Hezbollah threatens to close Ben Gurion Airport, or knock out the Israeli electrical grid, these are not empty threats
It is a mistake often made by those who style themselves as friends of Israel to cast such scenes as a fight between moderates and the extreme messianic right. This is wholly illusory, for the “moderates” are fully on board with continuing the murderous Gaza campaign. The “moderates” voted for the recent Knesset bill that rejects the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Where they differ is means, rather than ends.
Israelis who cling to their western identity are past masters of seizing Palestinian land in salami slices - subtly, quietly, without great fuss; but patiently, one property, one street, one high court case at a time. They care about their image, about being called global pariahs, and about the label of apartheid or war crimes being pinned on them personally.
The religious Zionist right, on the other hand, don’t give a tinker’s cuss about world opinion or international courts. They want annexation of the West Bank now. The sooner it happens, the better.
Call it two-speed Zionism, but the goal is the same: a one-state solution in which the modern state of Israel dominates, if not overlays, the biblical Land of Israel, the land from the river to the sea.
But it is a mistake, too, to underplay the ever-deepening fractures within Israel, which are occurring in the middle of a major war.
Israel portrays itself to the outside world as the one functioning state in a neighbourhood of failed ones. You don’t have to build a state in Israel, Netanyahu once bragged to US politicians in one of his many appearances before Congress: “We’re already built.”
But that state is showing distinct signs of failing, too.
Napoleon and Hitler were at the height of their powers, and their respective armies had tamed Europe under their jackboots, when each dictator thought it would be a good idea to attack Russia.
So, too, is Netanyahu endangering everything Israel has achieved in establishing a strong state by openly creating the conditions for a regional war.
The Israeli military knows the truth: that killing Haniyeh was the last thing they should be doing if they want to see any of their hostages back alive. They know they are not ready to attack southern Lebanon, because they don’t have enough tanks or ammunition.
They know how well-armed Hezbollah, the Houthis and other resistance groups are, and how effective their rockets are. They know about geography and distances, and the vulnerability of Israel’s population and economy to war on five fronts simultaneously. When Hezbollah threatens to close Ben Gurion Airport, or knock out the Israeli electrical grid, these are not empty threats.
Israeli security establishments also know they are in danger of losing command and control over their troops, and if they give the order to withdraw, many units may not obey.
Israel under Netanyahu’s leadership is making the classic mistake of all colonial powers. It is overreaching in the messianic belief that the Jews really are God’s chosen people; that the Bible ordained all of what is happening now, and that Israel can achieve its goal of complete military victory.
It is precisely at this moment that it is at its most vulnerable, and that the project could collapse.
In the final years of apartheid, the South African regime went into hyperdrive. It decided to overthrow the government of Angola, install a puppet regime in Namibia, and attack Zimbabwe, Botswana and Zambia—all fruitless projects that could not stave off regime collapse. Netanyahu’s Israel is treading the same path.
For nothing other than self-preservation, those who understand this should act before Netanyahu involves them in a war they could not possibly stop, still less win.
They wrote that "it exemplifies anti-Palestinian discrimination, obstructing the dissemination of knowledge on Palestine at the height of the genocide in Gaza," where students and educators face scholasticide.
As Israel continues its U.S.-backed annihilation of the Gaza Strip and Harvard University weighs a deal with the Trump administration, the Ivy League institution came under fire by more than 200 scholars on Thursday for recently canceling a journal issue on Palestine.
"We, the undersigned scholars, educators, and education practitioners, write to express our alarm at the Harvard Education Publishing Group's (HEPG) cancellation of a special issue on Palestine and Education in the Harvard Educational Review (HER)," says the open letter. "Such censorship is an attempt to silence the academic examination of the genocide, starvation, and dehumanization of Palestinian people by the state of Israel and its allies."
Last month, The Guardian revealed how, after over a year of seeking, collecting, and editing submissions for a special issue on "education and Palestine" in preparation for a summer release, HEPG scrapped plans for the publication in June.
"The Guardian spoke with four scholars who had written for the issue, and one of the journal's editors," the newspaper detailed. "It also reviewed internal emails that capture how enthusiasm about a special issue intended to promote 'scholarly conversation on education and Palestine amid repression, occupation, and genocide' was derailed by fears of legal liability and devolved into recriminations about censorship, integrity, and what many scholars have come to refer to as the 'Palestine exception' to academic freedom."
The new letter also uses that language:
Contributing authors of the special issue were informed late into the process that the publisher intended to subject all articles to a legal review by Harvard University's Office of General Counsel. In response to this extraordinary move, the 21 contributing authors submitted a joint letter to both HEPG and HER, protesting this process as a contractual breach that violated their academic freedom. They also underscored the publisher's actions would set a dangerous precedent not only for the study of Palestine, but for academic publishing as a whole. The authors demanded that HEPG honour the original terms of their contractual agreements, uphold the integrity of the existing HER review process, and ensure that the special issue proceed to publication without interference. However, just prior to its release, HEPG unilaterally canceled the entire special issue and revoked the signed author contracts, in what The Guardian notes as "a remarkable new development in a mounting list of examples of censorship of pro-Palestinian speech."
These events reflect what scholars have termed the "Palestine exception" to free speech and academic freedom. It exemplifies anti-Palestinian discrimination, obstructing the dissemination of knowledge on Palestine at the height of the genocide in Gaza—precisely when Palestinian educators and students are enduring the most severe forms of "scholasticide" in modern history.
In a lengthy online statement about the cancellation, HEPG executive director Jessica Fiorillo said that "we decided not to move forward with the special issue because it did not meet our established standards for scholarly publishing. Of the 12 proposed pieces, three were research-based articles, two were reprints of previously published HER articles, and seven were opinion pieces."
"As a student-edited, non-peer-reviewed publication, HER manuscripts, nonetheless, undergo internal review by experienced, professional staff," she continued. "During this review, we determined that the submissions required substantial editorial work to meet our publication criteria. We concluded that the best recourse for all involved was to revert the rights to the pieces to authors so that they could seek publication elsewhere."
The scholars wrote Thursday that "it is unconscionable that HEPG have chosen to publicly frame their cancellation of the special issue as a matter of academic quality, while omitting key publicly reported facts that point to censorship. Perhaps most disturbingly, HEPG leadership has sought to displace responsibility for their actions onto the authors and graduate student editors of the journal, calling into question the integrity of the journal's long-standing review processes, and dismissing the articles as 'opinion pieces' unfit for publication."
"The latter claim ignores that HER explicitly welcomes 'experiential knowledge' and 'reflective accounts' through their Voices submission format," they noted. "When genocide is ongoing, personal reflections and testimonies are not only valid but vital. Dismissing such contributions as lacking scholarly merit reflects an exclusionary view of 'whose knowledge counts'—valuing Western and external academic perspectives over lived experiences of violence and oppression."
The scholars—whose letter remains open to signatures—said that they "stand in solidarity with the authors and graduate student editors of the special issue, who are facing and confronting censorship and discrimination," and concluded by calling for "HEPG to be held accountable."
HEPG is a division of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. While a spokesperson for the latter did not respond to The Guardian's request for comment on the new letter, signatory and University of Oxford professor Arathi Sriprakash told the newspaper that the cancellation mobilized scholars "precisely because we recognize the grave consequences of such threats to academic freedom and academic integrity."
"The ongoing genocidal violence in Gaza has involved the physical destruction of the entire higher education system there, and now in many education institutions around the world there are active attempts to shut down learning about what's happening altogether," Sriprakash said. "As educationalists, we have to remain steadfast in our commitment to the pursuit of knowledge and learning without fear or threat."
HEPG's cancellation has been blasted as yet another example of higher education institutions capitulating as President Donald Trump's administration cracks down on schools where policies and speech on campus don't align with the White House agenda—including students' and educators' condemnation of the Israeli assault on Gaza and U.S. complicity in it. The Trump administration is also targeting individual critics, trying to deport foreign scholars who have spoken out or protested on campus over the past 22 months.
Harvard won praise in April for suing the federal government over a multibillion-dollar funding freeze. However, last month, the university "quietly dismantled its undergraduate school's offices for diversity, equity, and inclusion," and reportedly "signaled a willingness to meet the Trump administration's demand to spend as much as $500 million to end its dispute with the White House."
Amid fears of what a settlement, like those reached by other Ivy League institutions, might involve, Harvard faculty argued in a July letter that "the university must not directly or indirectly cede to governmental or other outside authorities the right to install or reject leading personnel—that is, to dictate who can be the officials who lead the university or its component schools, departments, and centers."
While the HER issue was canceled during Harvard's battle with Trump, outrage over how scholarship on Palestine is handled on campus predates the president's return to power in January. In November 2023, The Nation published a piece about Israel's war on Gaza that the Harvard Law Review commissioned from a Palestinian scholar but then refused to run after an internal debate.
At the time, the author of that essay, human rights attorney Rabea Eghbariah, wrote in an email to a Law Review editor: "This is discrimination. Let's not dance around it—this is also outright censorship. It is dangerous and alarming."
"So much for foreigners paying tariffs," commented one economic expert.
A leading inflation indicator surged much more than expected last month, just as the impact of U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs started to weigh on American businesses and consumers.
New Producer Price Index (PPI) numbers released on Thursday showed that wholesale prices rose by 0.9% over the last month and by 3.3% over the last year. These numbers were significantly higher than economists' consensus estimates of a 0.2% monthly rise and a 2.5% yearly rise in producer prices.
PPI is a leading indicator of future readings of the Consumer Price Index, the most widely cited gauge of inflation, as increases in wholesalers' prices almost inevitably get passed on to consumers. Economists have been predicting for months that Trump's tariffs on imported goods, which at the moment are higher than at any point in nearly 100 years, would lead to a spike in inflation.
Reacting to the higher-than-expected PPI number, some economic experts pinned the blame directly on the president.
"So much for foreigners paying tariffs," commented Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at tax consulting firm RSM US, on X. "If they did, PPI would be falling. Wholesale prices up 3.3% from a year ago and 3.7% in the core. The temperature is definitely rising in the core. This implies a hot PCE reading lies ahead."
Liz Pancotti, the managing director of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, took a deep dive into the numbers and found that Trump's tariffs were having an impact on a wide range of products.
"There is no mistaking it: President Trump's tariffs are hitting American farmers and driving up grocery prices for American families," she said. "Wholesale prices for grocery staples, like fresh vegetables (up 39% over the past month) and coffee (up 29% over the past year) are rising, squeezing American families even further in the checkout line."
Pancotti singled out the rise in milk prices as particularly worrisome for American families.
"Milk drove more than 30% of the increase in prices for unprocessed goods, rising by 9.1% in just the past month," she explained. "Tuesday's CPI print showed that milk prices rose by 1.9% in July, and this PPI data suggests further price hikes are on the way."
Betsey Stevenson, who served on former President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, also pointed the finger at Trump's policies.
"Tariffs will cause higher prices," she said. "Volatility and uncertainty will cause higher prices. The PPI jump is not a surprise, it was inevitable."
On his Bluesky account, CNBC's Carl Quintanilla flagged analysis from economic research firm High Frequency Economics stating that the new PPI numbers were "a kick in the teeth for anyone who thought that tariffs would not impact domestic prices in the United States economy."
The firm added that it "will not be a long journey for producers' prices to translate into consumer prices" in the coming months.
Liz Thomas, the head of investment strategy at finance company SoFi, argued that the hot PPI numbers could further frustrate Trump's goal of getting the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates given that doing so would almost certainly boost inflation further.
"The increase in PPI was driven by services, and there were increases in general services costs and in the Trade component (i.e., wholesale/retail margins)," she commented. "The Fed won't like this report."
Ross Hendricks, an analyst at economic research firm Porter & Co., described the new report as "scorching hot" and similarly speculated that it would stop the Federal Reserve from cutting rates.
"Good luck with them rate cuts!" he wrote. "Can't recall the last time we've seen a miss that big on a single monthly inflation number."
Hedge fund manager and author Jeff Macke jokingly speculated that the bad PPI print would cause Trump to fire yet another government statistician just as he fired Erika McEntarfer, the former commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
"Whoever compiles the PPI needs to update their CV," he wrote.
Just as with the monthly jobs report, the Bureau of Labor Statistics collects and publishes PPI data.
"The Trump administration is protecting lawbreaking corporate insiders from accountability instead of protecting Americans from corporate lawbreaking," said the author of a new Public Citizen report.
During the first six months of his second term, President Donald Trump's administration has withdrawn or suspended enforcement actions against 165 companies in sectors across the U.S. economy, with Big Tech benefiting most from federal agencies' lax approach to corporate crime.
A report released Wednesday by the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen found that the Trump administration has halted or ended a third of misconduct investigations and enforcement actions targeting technology firms—including behemoths such as Meta, Tesla, and Google.
Both Meta and Google donated to Trump's inaugural fund, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk spent big in support of the president's 2024 White House bid. Public Citizen found that the tech corporations that have benefited from Trump administration decisions to drop enforcement efforts have spent a combined $1.2 billion trying to influence the president.
"The Trump administration is protecting lawbreaking corporate insiders from accountability instead of protecting Americans from corporate lawbreaking," said Rick Claypool, a research director for Public Citizen and author of the new report. "To Big Tech corporations, this sends the message there is little risk in breaking the law in pursuit of profit—especially if you are an ally of the administration."
"For insiders," Claypool added, "corporate crime pays."
"Although he pretends to be tough on Big Tech, Donald Trump is a willing enabler of Big Tech's wrongdoing."
Public Citizen's report comes amid growing scrutiny of what one critic recently described as "the incredible shrinking Trump antitrust enforcers."
Despite claims of a "surging MAGA antitrust movement," Trump's Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission have repeatedly shown a willingness to bow to White House-connected lobbyists and allow corporate consolidation to proceed unabated. Last week, as Common Dreams reported, the Trump DOJ settled a Biden-era legal challenge against UnitedHealth Group, allowing the monopolist to swallow yet another competitor.
"The second Trump administration has now become a pay-to-play operation where influential MAGA lobbyists paid millions by large corporations use their clout with the president and Attorney General Pam Bondi to overrule the enforcers and push through mergers," The American Prospect's David Dayen wrote following news of the UnitedHealth settlement.
"It seems that if you're a company and can pony up the money," Dayen added, "you can get whatever regulatory treatment you wish. Bribery has gone in a few short months from a prohibited activity to the coin of the realm in Trump's America."
As Public Citizen's report showed, tech giants have been the chief beneficiaries of what the group characterized as the Trump administration's corrupt approach to corporate crime enforcement.
At the start of Trump's second term, at least 104 tech corporations faced more than 140 federal investigations and enforcement actions. The Trump administration has withdrawn or halted nearly 50 of those enforcement actions, Public Citizen found.
"Although he pretends to be tough on Big Tech, Donald Trump is a willing enabler of Big Tech's wrongdoing," Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said in a statement. "For Big Tech, a relative pittance in political spending has generated gigantic returns in dropped prosecutions, policy U-turns, and aggressive administration support for Big Tech's global agenda."