Israel Strikes Senior Hamas Leader It Says Was Last Remaining Oct. 7 Planner

On May 15, 2026 — the anniversary of the Nakba, a date laden with symbolism for Palestinians — Israeli jets struck a residential building in Gaza City's Rimal neighborhood. The target, according to the Israel Defense Forces, was Izz al-Din al-Haddad, the commander of Hamas's Al-Qassam Brigades and, as Israel framed it, "the last senior Hamas leader involved in the October 7 massacre" [1][2]. Neither Israel nor Hamas has confirmed al-Haddad's death, though a senior Israeli security official told reporters there were "initial indications" the strike was successful [3].

The strike follows a pattern that has defined Israel's war in Gaza since October 2023: the systematic elimination of Hamas's command structure. At least a dozen senior Hamas military and political figures have been killed since the war began [4]. But with each claimed decapitation, the same question returns — does killing leaders end the threat, or merely reshape it?

Who Was Izz al-Din al-Haddad?

Born in Gaza in 1970, al-Haddad joined Hamas in 1987 and rose through the ranks to become one of the most secretive figures in the Al-Qassam Brigades, earning the nickname "the Ghost of al-Qassam" for his operational secrecy [5]. He assumed leadership of Hamas's military wing after the deaths of Mohammed Deif in July 2024 and Muhammad Sinwar in May 2025 [6].

Israel's specific claim regarding al-Haddad's role in October 7 centers on his actions as a brigade commander. According to Israeli intelligence, on October 6, 2023, al-Haddad convened his battalion commanders and distributed written orders for what Hamas called "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood." The orders emphasized abducting Israeli soldiers and civilians and "live broadcasting and the takedown of Israeli communities" [5][7]. He also reportedly served as a captor of Israeli hostages, including soldier Liri Albag [8].

Independent verification of al-Haddad's precise role in planning October 7 is limited. Israeli intelligence assessments form the primary basis for these claims, and Hamas has not publicly confirmed or denied the specifics. No third-party intelligence service or investigative body has independently corroborated the extent of his planning role, though his senior position within the military wing's command structure is not disputed [5][7].

The Toll of the Strike

The airstrike hit a residential building in the Rimal neighborhood of Gaza City and a vehicle nearby. According to Al Jazeera and Palestinian medical sources, at least seven Palestinians were killed, including three women and a child, with dozens more injured [9]. The IDF has not publicly disclosed what precautions, if any, were taken to minimize civilian casualties in this specific strike.

The Rimal neighborhood, once one of Gaza City's most densely populated commercial districts, has been heavily damaged over the course of the war. The strike came during what was supposed to be a ceasefire period — a fragile arrangement first implemented in October 2025 [3].

The broader civilian toll of the war provides context. As of late April 2026, the Gaza Ministry of Health reported over 72,500 Palestinians killed and more than 172,000 injured since October 7, 2023 [10]. A peer-reviewed study published in The Lancet Global Health estimated that violent deaths were roughly 35% higher than the Ministry's official count for the period it studied, suggesting official figures are conservative [11]. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has found that 70% of Palestinians killed in strikes on residential buildings were women and children [10].

A Systematic Campaign of Leadership Elimination

Al-Haddad is the latest in a long line of senior Hamas figures Israel has killed since October 2023. The campaign has been remarkably sweeping:

• October 2023: Ibrahim Biari, commander of the Jabaliya Battalion
• December 2023: Saleh al-Arouri, co-founder of the Hamas military wing and deputy political leader, killed in Beirut
• March 2024: Marwan Issa, deputy commander of the military wing
• July 2024: Mohammed Deif, chief military commander, and Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas's top political leader, killed in Tehran
• October 2024: Yahya Sinwar, the leader widely considered the mastermind of October 7, killed in Rafah
• March 2025: Salah al-Bardawil, a senior member of Hamas's political bureau
• May 2025: Muhammad Sinwar, Yahya's brother and successor as military wing chief
• September 2025: Three senior political leaders killed in an Israeli strike on Doha, Qatar
• May 2026: Izz al-Din al-Haddad targeted [4][12][13]

Source: Times of Israel, Wilson Center

Data as of May 16, 2026CSV

Israel has repeatedly described successive targets as the "last" or "most senior remaining" figure linked to October 7. This language serves a domestic political purpose — signaling to the Israeli public that the mission of accountability is nearing completion — but it has been used so frequently that its credibility has eroded among analysts [14].

Does Decapitation Work? The Evidence Is Mixed

The academic literature on leadership decapitation of armed groups is extensive and largely skeptical. A widely cited study in International Security from MIT Press found that "high-value targeting is ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst" [15]. The study examined dozens of cases and concluded that removing leaders rarely destroys an organization and sometimes strengthens it.

Hamas's own history illustrates this pattern. Israel killed Hamas founders Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi in 2004. The result was not Hamas's collapse but its reorganization under Ismail Haniyeh, who led the group to win a majority of seats in the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections [16].

A more recent analysis from the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) in Singapore noted that while decapitation strikes "could paralyze organizations that rely on key commanders for decision-making and strategic direction" in the short term, "the long-term effectiveness is uncertain, as resistance groups have demonstrated the ability to adapt and emerge stronger" [14].

The case of ISIS offers a partial counterexample. The killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2019 contributed to the organization's territorial collapse, but ISIS had already lost its physical caliphate through a ground campaign. Analysts attribute the decline more to territorial loss than to leadership elimination alone [15].

In Israel's own experience, the killing of senior Hezbollah and Hamas figures in 2024 contributed to a cessation of hostilities in Lebanon and, indirectly, with Iran. But in Gaza and Yemen, similar strikes "did little to bring an end to war," as Axios reported [17].

Impact on Ceasefire and Hostage Negotiations

The timing of the al-Haddad strike — during a ceasefire and on the symbolically charged Nakba anniversary — has drawn sharp criticism. The strike comes against a backdrop of already-strained negotiations.

An Israeli official justified the timing by asserting that al-Haddad was "one of the main obstacles in the implementation of US President Donald Trump's 20-point plan for ending the Gaza war," which includes Hamas's disarmament and the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip. The official stated that al-Haddad had "defiantly undermined President Trump's and the Board of Peace efforts to disarm Hamas" [18].

Previous Israeli strikes have already damaged the diplomatic architecture of negotiations. In September 2025, Israel struck Hamas political leaders in Doha, Qatar — a major non-NATO ally of the United States that had been mediating ceasefire talks for nearly two years. That strike severely strained Qatar's willingness to serve as an intermediary [19]. The Council on Foreign Relations noted that the Doha strike "risked the Gaza ceasefire" and undermined trust with Gulf states whose cooperation was essential to any peace process [20].

Egypt has reportedly stepped in as a potential replacement for Qatar as the primary mediator, but neither the Israeli government nor Hamas has shown sustained interest in a comprehensive deal [19].

Hostage families have expressed mixed reactions throughout the campaign. Former hostages, including those who were held by al-Haddad personally, expressed satisfaction at the reported strike. Former hostage Liri Albag's family was personally briefed by Defense Minister Israel Katz [8][21]. However, other hostage families and advocacy groups have repeatedly warned that military strikes risk the lives of remaining captives in Gaza.

The Legal Framework

Israel justifies targeted killings under two principal legal doctrines. First, it invokes the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Second, it classifies senior Hamas operatives as "Continuous Combat Functionaries" (CCF) under international humanitarian law — individuals who, because of their ongoing role in hostilities, remain lawful military targets at all times during an armed conflict [22].

The Israeli Supreme Court established a framework for targeted killings in its landmark 2006 Targeted Killings Case, which held that such operations are permissible under specific conditions: the target must be directly participating in hostilities, arrest must be infeasible, and the expected civilian harm must be proportionate to the military advantage [23].

Critics raise several objections. The principle of proportionality requires that civilian casualties not be "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." Whether striking a residential building to kill one commander — resulting in seven civilian deaths including women and children — satisfies this standard is contested [22][23]. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants related to the broader Gaza conflict, and international legal scholars have questioned whether the cumulative pattern of strikes on residential buildings meets the requirements of distinction and proportionality under the Geneva Conventions [24].

No major international legal body has issued a formal ruling specifically on the al-Haddad strike, given its recency. However, the broader Israeli campaign of targeted killings in Gaza has been subject to ongoing scrutiny by the ICC and the International Court of Justice.

The Case Against the Strike: Critics Within Israel's Own Establishment

The strongest case that the strike was counterproductive comes, paradoxically, from within Israel's own security establishment. While no former officials have publicly criticized the al-Haddad strike specifically (as of this writing), the pattern of internal dissent over the broader strategy is well documented.

During the September 2025 Doha strike, Mossad chief David Barnea opposed the operation — not on principle against killing senior Hamas figures, but because of the diplomatic fallout from conducting the strike on Qatari soil during active negotiations [25]. Major General Nitzan Alon, head of the intelligence center for prisoners and hostages, argued that "in the midst of negotiations, even if chances of success were slim, it was unwise to strain relations with Qatar" [25].

The broader critique, articulated by former senior intelligence officials and opposition politicians, runs along several lines: that each killing reinforces Hamas's martyrdom narrative; that it hardens the resolve of Gaza's population rather than turning them against Hamas; that it removes figures who, however hostile, could have been leveraged in negotiations; and that it provides short-term political benefits to the Netanyahu government while doing little to advance long-term security [14][16].

As the Cairo Review of Global Affairs argued in an analysis of the campaign, Hamas "cannot be destroyed" through military means alone because it is as much a political movement rooted in Palestinian grievances as it is a military organization [16].

Who Comes Next?

If al-Haddad is confirmed dead, Hamas faces another leadership vacuum in its military wing — but one it has prepared for. Israeli military assessments indicate that Hamas currently has "no single figure holding the entire apparatus together," with the organization in a period of deliberate restructuring [26].

On the political side, Khalil al-Hayya and Khaled Mashaal have emerged as the leading candidates to head the political bureau [27]. In Gaza, Ali al-Amoudi — a former head of Hamas's media apparatus and a Sinwar ally released in the 2011 prisoner exchange — serves as the interim political head [26].

Hamas has historically operated with extensive succession planning. The Al-Qassam Brigades' decentralized command structure means that brigade and battalion commanders can operate with significant autonomy. While the loss of senior leadership disrupts strategic coordination, it does not eliminate the organization's capacity for tactical operations [14][26].

Whether successor leadership will be more or less inclined toward large-scale attacks against Israel is uncertain. Some analysts suggest that younger, less politically experienced commanders may be more radical and less restrained. Others argue that the sheer scale of devastation in Gaza has reduced Hamas's operational capacity regardless of who is in command. The honest answer is that outside observers have limited visibility into Hamas's internal deliberations, and confident predictions about successor leadership's behavior should be treated with skepticism [16][26].

The Broader Picture

Nearly three years after October 7, 2023, Israel has killed virtually every senior Hamas figure it has publicly identified as responsible for the attack. The toll on Hamas's leadership has been staggering by any historical measure. Yet Hamas continues to operate in Gaza, maintains a political presence abroad, and retains the capacity to launch attacks, however diminished.

The war has cost over 72,500 Palestinian lives according to official counts [10], displaced nearly the entire population of Gaza, and produced a humanitarian catastrophe that international organizations have described in terms that range from a severe crisis to genocide. Israel has lost over 1,700 soldiers and civilians since October 7, 2023, and dozens of hostages remain unaccounted for.

The strike on al-Haddad, whether or not it killed its target, encapsulates the central tension of Israel's campaign: each tactical success raises the same unanswered strategic question. At what point does eliminating the last planner of a past attack become less important than preventing the conditions that produce the next one?

This article relies on reporting from multiple international news outlets and academic sources. Casualty figures from the Gaza Ministry of Health have been independently assessed as conservative by peer-reviewed research in The Lancet Global Health. Claims about al-Haddad's specific role are primarily sourced from Israeli military and intelligence assessments and have not been independently verified by a third party.