Israel did not claim responsibility in the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, one of the founding leaders of Ezzedine al Qassam Brigades, the military faction of Hamas in Dubai. To this day, it hasn't claimed its responsibility in the assassination of Imad Moghniyeh, the Hezbollah official, two years ago in Damascus. This silence is consistent with an old Israeli decision to maintain such operations shrouded in mystery, especially that to admit committing them on the territory of other countries would imply many repercussions and complications. The full circumstances of al-Mabhouh's assassination have not yet been revealed. He had been living in Syria since the beginning of the 1990s. Many explanations have emerged. There are those who consider that he was assassinated for his role in capturing and killing two Israeli soldiers twenty years ago. Others believe he was killed for his role in transporting Iranian weapons to Gaza. It was normal for Khaled Mishal to vow revenge during the funeral of the man who ‘continued to work until the moment he was assassinated', according to Hamas. He said: “We will avenge the fiery blood of that giant. This duel between us will continue, and one day we will be victorious. We shall avenge that man's blood.” In Gaza, Mahmoud al-Zahar alluded to the fact that Israel will be responsible if it chooses to extend the confrontation outside Palestine, stressing that the hand of Hamas is far-reaching. Many questions come to mind, the first of which is: How and where will Hamas respond? Will it respond outside Palestine, and thus slide into a confrontation on multiple arenas that many sides will soon exploit to accuse the Palestinian movement of practicing terror? What are the lessons that can be drawn from the duel the world previously witnessed between the Israeli apparatuses and the various Palestinian factions? What if Hamas executed an operation against an Israeli target abroad then other sides executed operations in its name? Is this what Hamas needs, or does it need an international acknowledgement? Did Israel murder al-Mabhouh in order to draw attention to the link between Hamas and Iran, or to lure the movement into a broad battle that would facilitate the return of western and international sides to the condemnation of “terrorist” practices perpetrated by Palestinians? Assuming Hamas chose to stay away from the trap of retaliation abroad, is it able to execute a strong reprisal from Gaza, and how much would that cost? What if Israel used Hamas' response as a pretext to bomb Gaza again and increase the suffering of its inhabitants who haven't yet healed from the wounds of the previous aggression? Will it be easy for Hamas to reignite the front on the Gaza border, and what if other factions choose to ignite it under the pretext of avenging the death of al-Mabhouh and others? Would the Israeli response be different if Hamas decided to retaliate from the West Bank and Israel responded by avenging itself from the West Bank's inhabitants? It is no secret that the transformation of Hamas into an authority in Gaza hinders its ability to move. It now has a clear location that Israel can target and destroy. It is now responsible for appeasement, the prevention of its violation, and the respect of ceasefire. Resistance after the Gaza war is different than how it was before. Resistance in Lebanon after the July war is different than how it was before. Until now, Hezbollah hasn't fallen in the trap of retaliating to Moghniyeh's assassination abroad. Domestically, resolution 1701 prevents any movement on the front, as doing so would expose Lebanon to dangers with unpredictable repercussions. Still, the strongest reprisal Hamas can make to avenge al-Mabhouh is to hasten and return to the umbrella of the Palestinian reconciliation. Khaled Mishal is completely aware that the region is pregnant with many explosions, and that it is in the Palestinians' interest to be united and wait, especially if the Iranian issue becomes ablaze and the world busies itself with treating its repercussions.
