Killing of Hamas leader threatens to undermine peace process

 The physical elimination of Hezbollah's number two, which took place in Lebanon, was followed by that of Hamas leader Hanieyh in Tehran. The common feature is that these murders took place on foreign soil, belonging to the sovereignty of the respective states; the point is important because the responsibility for the assassins, in the first case, was claimed by the Israelis, while in the second case Tel Aviv is silent for now; however, several international actors agree in attributing responsibility to the armed forces of Israel. Claiming an attack on Iranian soil means admitting a dangerous violation of Tehran's sovereignty, which would justify a response from the Shiite country. In reality, there are objectively few doubts about the instigator of the rocket that hit the victim's house. The rocket did not come from inside the Iranian country, but arrived there from abroad, a clue that does not speak in favor of Tel Aviv. If this were the case, the consequences of the Israeli strategy would concretely risk frighteningly widening a conflict that has already risked becoming lethal for the entire world too many times. Tel Aviv presents itself to the world with a conduct that is contemptuous of international law and without any desire to seek a true peace that is not functional to its own expansionist goals, both in Gaza and in the West Bank. An aspect that plays a decisive role in Israel's conduct are the useless threats from Europe, which does nothing to put an end to the Israeli massacres, and the substantial support, albeit with criticism, of the United States. If the condemnation and the consequent threats, from the Iranian side appear to be obvious (among other things, the killing of the Hamas representative occurred on the occasion of the investiture of the new president of Iran), the reactions of other nations and organizations have also been particularly violent. Turkey has defined the assassination as despicable, Erdogan had already heavily condemned Tel Aviv for the killing of the Hezbollah leader and in this instance he has doubled the dose, the attitude of the Turkish president is functional to regain consensus in view of the presidential elections, setting himself up as a defender of the Palestinian people. The Turkish question is particularly important, because Ankara is part of the Atlantic Alliance and its political line differs significantly, especially from that of Washington. Naturally Hamas has threatened Israel, but the current military conditions are less worrying for Israel than kamikaze attacks by isolated members, just as the situation in the West Bank risks dangerously worsening, where popular unrest will start with strikes and demonstrations against the Israeli government; more problematic, from a military point of view, are the retaliatory actions promised by the Houthis, who have already demonstrated that they can hit Israel with their drones. Iraq has also condemned Israel, while the US has assured Tel Aviv of protection in the event of an attack, words that do not help to cool the situation. Tehran, for its part, has stated that the fact will bring the Shiite country even closer to the Palestinians, what this rapprochement will be like is a central question, because if it materialises with military aid or interventions in support of the belligerents in Gaza, tension between the two states will probably rise to levels never seen before. In any case, it is unthinkable that Tehran will not respond with an action at least equal to that of Israel, if this succeeds it will reopen the race for retaliation, with obvious repercussions on the talks and on the peace process for the situation in Gaza. In the general context, the reaction of Qatar, personally involved in the peace talks, is particularly effective, having underlined that in a negotiation where one party kills a representative of the other it has no chance of achieving success; this is probably exactly what Israel and its government of irresponsible people want.