Assassination of senior Hamas leader in Lebanon not likely to widen ongoing Israel-Hamas war: Analysts

Israel’s assassination of a senior Hamas leader on Lebanese soil on Tuesday (Jan 2), which stoked fears of the Israel-Hamas war spilling into the wider region, is not likely to elicit a strong reaction, analysts said.

Despite the drone strike taking place in southern Beirut, a stronghold of Lebanese militia Hezbollah, the group is not likely to retaliate, Associate Professor of Middle East and Islamic Politics Nader Hashemi said on Friday.

“If it were to do so, it would invite a very heavy Israeli response that would probably devastate much of the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, and push the country of Lebanon over the brink,” he said.

Assoc Prof Hashemi, from the Edmund A Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University in Washington, pointed out that more than 80 per cent of Lebanon’s population lives in poverty. He said the nation has a “broken political system (and) a very broken economic system” and cannot sustain a war.

“From that perspective, Lebanon and Hezbollah are very much constrained,” he said. “I think they'll probably keep doing what they have been doing since October the seventh – the low intensity sort of conflict, firing missiles across the Lebanon-Israel border, but try and keep things contained and constrained within that framework.”

Israel killed Hamas deputy leader Saleh al-Arouri in a drone strike in Lebanon's capital Beirut on Tuesday.

Arouri, 57, was the first senior Hamas political leader to be assassinated since Israel launched a shattering air and ground offensive against Gaza's Hamas rulers, almost three months after a shock Hamas militant rampage into Israeli towns on Oct 7 last year.

Another reason that Hezbollah and other groups in the region may not respond is that they do not need to get involved in a wider war, said Professor of Politics Stephen Zunes of the University of San Francisco.

“They're getting a lot of popular support because of this popular revulsion of the Israeli war on Gaza and a high civilian death toll, and the way the United States is supporting Israel. Politically, they're gaining a lot by just kind of sitting back and making statements and maybe firing a rocket or two at a more symbolic level,” he told CNA938 on Friday.

WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM WIDER WAR

Hamas is similarly benefiting from the global outrage against the war and the “criticism that Israel has been facing for its war crimes in Gaza”,” said Assoc Prof Hashemi.

“Hamas would be very happy if the war ended tomorrow. It would be able to emerge from the tunnels and say that ‘we defeated Israel, we defeated the United States,’” he said.

However, he warned that if Hamas were to declare such victory, it would give militant groups in the Middle East and “those countries that want to change the politics of the region, not through diplomacy, but through military means” a boost.

On the other hand, it would be in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s interest to expand the war, said Assoc Prof Hashemi.

His political career is “very much in jeopardy” because given that he is the leader of the country, he will be held responsible for the tragedy that killed roughly 1,200 Israelis (on Oct 7),” he noted.

“So he has an interest in keeping this war going and expanding the war. He has to be able to claim some sort of military victory as a way of perpetuating his political career,” he said.

“Because if he returns back from this war without any victories, he's going to be held to account.”

He added that another reason is that the war in Gaza has gone “very bad” for Israel.

“The 100-day anniversary of this war is fast approaching, and Hamas is still firing rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israel. Israel has been unable to capture any of the senior leaders (in Gaza) or kill them. Hamas seems to be very much intact,” noted Prof Hashemi, adding that this is a “major military defeat for Israel”.

“One way of trying to shift attention from Israel's military failure in Gaza, and also the humanitarian catastrophe which some people are saying is a genocide, is to try and broaden the war, try and perhaps get Iran to respond to some of these Israeli provocations, hoping that the United States will then enter the conflict, and it will shift into a very different dimension,” he said.

“That's part of the strategy here, whether it'll play itself out remains to be seen.”

Israel’s response to the Oct 7 attacks – relentless bombardment and ground invasion supported by aid from the US – has reduced swathes of Gaza to rubble and claimed about 23,000 lives, according to the enclave’s health ministry.

US’ INTERNATIONAL STANDING

Prof Zunes said that while the US is supporting Israel's right to self-defence over the Oct 7 attack, “vetoing UN Security Council resolution simply calling for a ceasefire or even humanitarian pause, and the insistence that US military aid be unconditional despite it being used in war crimes, has really hurt America's standing in the world”.

“How can we (the US) in good conscience say that Russia has no right to bomb those apartment blocks and engage in terror bombing of Ukrainian cities? We’re defending an ally doing the same sort of things. So I really think it's hurt our moral standing and in doing so, I think has hurt our standing diplomatically as well,” he said.

The US has been stalwart in its support of Ukraine since Russia invaded the country in February 2022.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is on a trip to Israel and the West Bank, as well as nearby countries like Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as Washington continues diplomatic consultations on the conflict.

While the US has continued to back Israel diplomatically and militarily, there is concern about the “enormously high civilian death toll” from the Israel-Hamas war and the shock and horror that has resounded around the world and how it is damaging America’s reputation, Prof Zunes said.

Apart from reiterating support for Israel and cautioning Israel not to go too far, Mr Blinken’s agenda also involves damage control “to make sure that the reputation of the United States and its leadership in international affairs (are not) damaged further”, he said.