Appointment of new Hamas chief precludes peace

 The decision, probably Israeli, to eliminate the political leader and negotiator of Hamas, Ismail Haniye, has led to his replacement with Yahya Sinuar, the military leader of the organization and considered the one who planned the attack of October 7 and, for this reason, the most wanted by the Israel Defense Forces. This forced changeover at the top of Hamas represents a response towards Israel, which appears to be a sort of retaliation against Tel Aviv and which is meant to signify a clear distancing from the peace negotiations and a shift towards an even more violent attitude in the war in Gaza in particular, and in any case against any possible agreement with the Israelis. The two-state solution is also moving away, because both leaders of the two parties, Sinuar and Netanyahu, now agree precisely on their opposition to this solution. Hamas's choice can be understood but not shared, because it will mean even greater pressure on the civilian population of Gaza, with more victims and health and hygiene situations, if possible, even worse than the current ones. The impression is that Hamas has fallen into the Israeli trap, whose intention in eliminating Haniye was precisely to replace him with Sinuar. The turning point, with the appointment of the military head of Hamas, will further increase Israel's repressive activity, both in Gaza and in the West Bank, giving a sort of justification to preventive military actions, which could allow the conquest of other areas; it appears clear, in fact, that the massacre of October 7 is now a pretext to wipe out the Palestinian population from the territories still inhabited by the Arab ethnic group, which the Israeli government, composed largely of religious nationalists, considers its own. Netanyahu, after all, has always followed a wait-and-see tactic, since the installation of the first government, which took place in 1996. The Israeli prime minister has repeatedly deceived international politics, about the possibility of the creation of a Palestinian state; in reality it never really envisaged such a solution and now it is taking advantage of a politically incorrect and above all reckless action by Hamas to put an end to the two-state project, despite it being the solution most supported by most countries in the world. This can happen because the US continues to support Tel Aviv, even despite the senseless massacres of civilians in Gaza and the activity carried out on the territory of other states in contempt of every rule of international law and Europe, beyond the facade declarations, has never undertaken a concrete policy of sanctions to stop the violence. The Palestinians certainly cannot count on the uselessly brought support of Iran, Hezbollah and Houthi, who, indeed, risk with their attitude, to cause collateral victims of their initiatives. The Sunni Arab states maintain a detached attitude, due to their interest in new relations with Tel Aviv and do not go beyond mere pragmatic declarations. The matter of the appointment of the military leader of Hamas as political leader of the same organization, moreover, is not the result of an electoral consultation, but of a self-referential maneuver of which the Palestinians are victims and which, for them and perhaps for the world, does not appear to be a convenient choice. The possibility of an influence on this decision by the actors most hostile to Israel and considered by Hamas to be the only reliable allies: Iran and Hezbollah must also be evaluated; in the context of a retaliation, now considered increasingly probable for the assassination of the political leader of Hamas, which took place in Tehran, the appointment of the military leader as political leader of Hamas could mean a greater commitment for Israel in Gaza, coinciding precisely with the start of the Iranian retaliation. The Israelis could be more consistently engaged in Gaza, attacked in the North by Hezbollah and hit by the Iranians and by the actions of the Houthi drones. The result would be a military pressure, perhaps never seen before, to which Israel would be subjected. Meanwhile, American naval assets are already deployed and the danger of a widening of the conflict is increasingly likely and the nomination of Hamas only increases this possibility even more.