By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Muhammad Issam Hassan al-Habil, identified as a Hamas cell commander responsible for the brutal murder of IDF surveillance soldier Cpl. Noa Marciano while in captivity, was killed in an Israeli airstrike. This strike occurred in Gaza City’s Shati Camp, following an attack on Israeli troops in northern Gaza. Intelligence gathered indicated al-Habil’s direct involvement in Marciano’s death within Shifa Hospital, a claim corroborated by interrogations of other captured suspects.
Read the original article here
The news that a Hamas terrorist responsible for the brutal murder of Israeli hostage Noa Marciano has been killed in an IDF strike is met with a range of emotions, but for many, it signifies a form of justice. The violent lives of terrorists often end violently, a stark reality that some view as an inevitable consequence of their actions, a sort of “c’est la vie” in its most extreme form. The hope is that such an end serves as a potent warning to others who might contemplate similar atrocities, a grim reminder that their path leads only to destruction. This news is, for many, a cause for celebration, a moment of relief in a conflict that has brought immense pain and suffering.
It’s important to remember the context surrounding these events, particularly the tactics employed by Hamas. The organization has a well-documented history of maintaining its power by actively derailing any prospects for peace. Their strategy often involves acts of violence, and the suffering of their own people is frequently a byproduct, or even a calculated element, of this strategy. To support or defend Hamas, or to consistently redirect blame towards Israel, is to align oneself with a group whose actions are characterized by extreme violence and a disregard for human life.
Hamas bears a significant responsibility for the deaths of its own civilians, a fact that is often obscured by narratives that seek to portray them differently. This responsibility stems not only from their practice of using civilians as shields, recruiting children, and diverting essential aid like baby formula, but also from their occupation of hospitals and their deliberate firing of rockets towards their own population. Furthermore, Hamas has intentionally provoked conflict, engaging in acts like rape with the express purpose of sabotaging any possibility of peace or evolution in relations with Israel. The murder of Noa Marciano, an atrocious war crime, exemplifies this brutal ideology.
The notion that the death of one terrorist, even one who committed such heinous acts, is somehow “avenged” by the deaths of innocent civilians, is a deeply problematic one. If the punishment for a single murderer requires the deaths of multiple innocent people, then justice is not served; rather, the cycle of violence is perpetuated and amplified. It is unfortunate that in the course of operations aimed at neutralizing terrorists, innocent lives are lost. However, the strategy of Hamas, which deliberately places its operatives and infrastructure within civilian areas, makes such tragic outcomes almost inevitable.
The reality is that Hamas’s actions are designed to provoke a response that results in civilian casualties. This is precisely what they want. They thrive on the ensuing international outcry and the narrative of Israeli aggression, which they then use to bolster their own standing. When airstrikes are carried out, and unfortunately, some civilians are caught in the crossfire, it is often due to Hamas’s deliberate strategy of embedding themselves within the population. This is a cynical and cruel tactic, but it is a tactic that has proven effective for them in garnering sympathy and support from those who do not fully grasp the complexities of the situation.
The notion that indiscriminate killing might occasionally “catch a few bad guys” is a cold and unfeeling perspective, yet it reflects a harsh reality of warfare. In any conflict, particularly one involving a group like Hamas that deliberately conceals itself among civilians, the line between combatant and non-combatant can become tragically blurred. The vast majority of strikes may be directed at Hamas targets, but the inherent danger of operating in such an environment means that civilian lives are invariably at risk. The effectiveness of these strikes, statistically speaking, might be higher than some critics acknowledge, with a significant percentage hitting Hamas operatives and infrastructure.
Negotiating peace with a group like Hamas is exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, given their fundamental ideology and their consistent violation of ceasefires. Their aim is not coexistence but destruction. Throughout history, successful negotiations have typically involved groups with a degree of pragmatism and a willingness to engage in political processes. While some might draw parallels to historical groups like the IRA, it’s crucial to distinguish between a paramilitary wing and a broader political movement. Hamas, in its current form, operates primarily as a paramilitary force driven by extremist ideology.
The true tragedy lies in the absence of a viable alternative to Hamas in Gaza, at least in the eyes of many international actors. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) might represent a more moderate path, but their influence has waned, and they are not currently in a position to effectively govern or negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people in Gaza. The international community, including the UN and the US, has shown little inclination or ability to foster a different power dynamic. This leaves a vacuum that Hamas continues to fill through coercion and violence.
The potential for a more constructive path forward, such as allowing the PLO to manage the flow of supplies into Gaza under international protection, has been largely unrealized. Such a scenario could have demonstrated to the Gazan population that there are alternatives to Hamas rule and could have begun to erode Hamas’s authority. However, the pervasive nature of conflict and the entrenched interests of various actors often work against such peaceful resolutions. War, for some, becomes a profitable enterprise, a distraction from deeper issues, and a means to consolidate power.
The continuation of attacks and the ensuing cycle of violence are almost guaranteed as long as Hamas remains in control of Gaza. The younger generation in Gaza, growing up under Hamas rule, is unlikely to develop positive relations with Israel, just as Israelis, witnessing ongoing threats and past atrocities, find peace increasingly elusive. The persistence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, coupled with ongoing military operations in Gaza, further fuels resentment and hinders any genuine progress towards lasting peace.
The October 7th attacks, rather than being a stroke of strategic genius, represented a catastrophic failure of intelligence and security. The subsequent response, while aimed at eliminating the threat, has unfortunately mirrored patterns seen in other conflicts, where overreaction fails to create lasting peace or goodwill. The experience of the US after 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated that military responses alone do not foster positive relationships or achieve long-term stability. True peace requires negotiation with more moderate factions and the empowerment of local populations to govern themselves, a scenario that seems to be desired by few.
Considering the complex web of geopolitical interests, one can envision a fictional scenario where events are orchestrated to serve the agendas of various international players. In such a scenario, the actions of one nation might inadvertently fuel another’s, creating a chain reaction that benefits powerful individuals and states, all at the cost of innocent lives. This includes the potential for increased military spending, political maneuvering, and the distraction from critical global issues, all while civilian populations bear the brunt of the conflict. This underscores the grim reality that for some, the continuation of war serves as a profitable and politically advantageous endeavor.
The idea that Hamas profits from civilian deaths is a disturbing but likely accurate assessment of their strategic calculus. When civilians are killed, it generates international condemnation, which Hamas can then leverage to its advantage. They actively seek situations where they can be perceived as victims, thereby garnering sympathy and support. This is why they deliberately place themselves within civilian populations and provoke responses that inevitably lead to casualties. Supporting Hamas, even indirectly by focusing solely on Israeli actions without acknowledging Hamas’s provocations, is akin to supporting a cult that thrives on death and destruction.
The argument that it is acceptable to kill those who a terrorist group hides behind, and that the blame lies solely with the terrorists, is a complex ethical minefield. While the ultimate responsibility for the conflict and the presence of terrorists among civilians rests with Hamas, the act of killing innocent people, regardless of the circumstances, is a tragic outcome that demands careful consideration. The goal should always be to apprehend or neutralize the terrorists while minimizing civilian harm. However, when a group like Hamas intentionally uses women and children as shields, they are effectively making them participants in their own demise, a cruel and manipulative tactic.
The assertion that Hamas thrives on airstrikes and dead children highlights the perverse logic of their operations. They actively seek situations that will lead to civilian deaths because it serves their narrative and fuels their cause. Therefore, any celebration of an event that involves the death of a terrorist, while understandable given the preceding atrocities, must also acknowledge the devastating collateral damage and the immense suffering of innocent civilians. The focus on the death of a single terrorist should not overshadow the broader tragedy and the fact that the cycle of violence continues to claim lives, including those of women and children.
The practice of placing weapons and supplies among civilians, as reportedly seen with Hamas loading an ambulance, is a clear violation of international law and a direct cause of civilian endangerment. When such actions lead to retaliatory strikes, it is essential to acknowledge that Hamas’s provocations are a primary driver of these consequences. The news often glosses over these details, focusing instead on the immediate outcome of the strike, which further perpetuates a one-sided narrative.
The framing of a group like Hamas as a “suicide cult” that “begs for” death and thrives on the killing of those they hide behind is a powerful, albeit grim, characterization. It emphasizes the extremist nature of the group and their willingness to sacrifice their own people to achieve their objectives. The statement that “killing 70,000 people is Hamas’ winning scenario” underscores the calculated indifference they have towards human life when it serves their political or ideological goals.
Ultimately, the conflict is characterized by a profound lack of trust and a deep-seated animosity. Hamas’s continued violation of ceasefires and their deliberate actions, such as loading ambulances with weapons, demonstrate their unwavering commitment to violence. The international community’s efforts to broker peace are continually undermined by these actions, making the path towards a stable resolution exceedingly difficult. The news of a terrorist responsible for a heinous murder being neutralized is a moment of closure for some, but it is also a stark reminder of the ongoing struggle for peace and security in a region plagued by extremism.