Another Hamas Commander Falls, But Does Targeted Killing End the Cycle of Violence?
The elimination of Hassan Mahmoud Hassan Hsein marks another tactical victory for Israel, yet the strategic question remains whether such operations bring lasting security or perpetuate an endless loop of retaliation.
The Shadow of October 7
The Israeli military’s announcement of Hsein’s death represents the latest chapter in Israel’s methodical campaign to hunt down those responsible for the October 7, 2023 attacks—the deadliest day in Israel’s history since its founding. As commander of a Nukhba unit in Hamas’ al-Bureij Battalion, Hsein was allegedly instrumental in orchestrating the assault on a roadside shelter near Re’im, where civilians seeking refuge were murdered. The IDF and Shin Bet’s joint operation, executed through precision airstrikes, follows a pattern established over decades of Israeli counterterrorism efforts in Gaza and the West Bank.
This targeted killing comes amid Israel’s broader military campaign in Gaza, which has drawn international scrutiny over civilian casualties and humanitarian concerns. The operation against Hsein, conducted by the Southern Command with air force support, demonstrates Israel’s continued intelligence capabilities despite the ongoing conflict. His elimination, along with that of his associate Mohammed Abu Atiwi in October 2024, suggests Israeli intelligence has maintained detailed tracking of Hamas leadership structures even as the organization operates from underground tunnels and civilian areas.
The Doctrine of Deterrence
Israel’s strategy of targeted assassinations, refined over decades since the Second Intifada, rests on several assumptions: that eliminating key commanders disrupts operational capabilities, deters future attacks, and delivers justice for victims. Proponents argue that removing experienced leaders like Hsein—who possessed institutional knowledge and operational expertise—creates organizational chaos within Hamas and forces less experienced operatives into leadership roles. The precision nature of such strikes, they contend, minimizes civilian casualties compared to broader military operations.
Yet critics of this approach point to its mixed historical record. While tactical successes abound, from the killing of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 2004 to numerous Islamic Jihad commanders, these operations have rarely produced lasting strategic shifts. Hamas has consistently demonstrated resilience, promoting new leaders and maintaining its military capabilities. The cycle of targeted killings followed by rocket attacks and retaliations has characterized Israeli-Palestinian relations for decades, raising questions about whether this doctrine truly enhances Israeli security or merely manages an intractable conflict.
Beyond the Battlefield
The elimination of commanders like Hsein occurs within a broader context of regional transformation and shifting international dynamics. As Arab states increasingly normalize relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords, and as global attention pivots between various crises, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict risks becoming a frozen dispute—perpetually managed through military means rather than resolved through political compromise. The focus on eliminating October 7 perpetrators satisfies domestic demands for justice but does little to address the underlying conditions that enable groups like Hamas to recruit and operate.
Moreover, each successful targeted killing carries diplomatic costs. International law remains contested on the legality of such operations, particularly when conducted in densely populated areas. Human rights organizations consistently document civilian casualties, while Israel maintains these are unfortunate but unavoidable consequences of Hamas’s strategy of embedding military infrastructure within civilian neighborhoods. This legal and moral debate shapes international perceptions and potentially constrains Israel’s freedom of action in future conflicts.
As Israel continues its campaign against those responsible for October 7, the fundamental question persists: can a conflict rooted in competing national aspirations, historical grievances, and religious claims be resolved through military means alone? The death of Hassan Mahmoud Hassan Hsein may bring a measure of justice to victims’ families and temporarily disrupt Hamas operations, but without a broader political framework for addressing Palestinian aspirations and Israeli security concerns, such tactical victories risk becoming mere punctuation marks in an endless sentence of violence.
