Review of World Affairs

 * Gaza War: Yahya Sinwar’s Killing & New Situation

• Nobel Prize in Economics: Why Some Nations are Rich & Others Poor

By Shashi P.B.B. Malla

Gaza War

Most analysts are of the opinion that the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar brings the end of the Gaza war within reach – if Israeli PM Netanyahu can seize the chance.

Sinwar, the man dubbed by Israel a “dead man walking” is dead – in an unusual chance encounter.

Sinwar’s killing in Gaza is a major win for Israel following a year-long manhunt for the man believed to be the mastermind of the deadliest terror attack in Israeli’s history (CNN-World/ Ivana Kottasova, Oct. 18).

And it could bring the devastating war in Gaza to an end, experts say – if Israel and its allies, foremost the United States can seize the opportunity.

Sinwar Changes the Equation

Harel Chorev, senior researcher at the Moshe Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University, told CNN that Sinwar’s death could be a fatal blow for Hamas because of the way he ran the group.

Before the current war, power in Hamas was decentralized – with Gaza political chief just one of many leaders, Chorev said.

But that changed over the past year.

“Sinwar became the sole decision maker, and of course, he grew stronger and stronger as Israel killed more and more important figures, such as (Hamas military chief) Mohammed Deif,” Chorev said.

A year of pounding by Israel, which has left swathes of Gaza devastated and brought a huge toll for civilians, has left Hamas greatly weakened.

Sinwar’s killing will create a major power vacuum – which Israel and its allies will no doubt aim to capitalize on (CNN).

It is not known whether Sinwar left any instructions on what should happen in the event of his death.

Several names have been floated as possible successors, including Sinwar’s brother Mohammed, who is seen as another hardliner, and Khalil Al Hayya, chief negotiator for Hamas during ceasefire talks in Cairo. Neither is as prominent as Sinwar in Gaza.

“Israel needs to take advantage of this situation and the major confusion that is probably spreading along the ranks of Hamas,” Chorev said.

Netanyahu’s ‘Political Calculations’

Netanyahu has insisted his goal is to eliminate Hamas completely, even though many experts have warned this may not be possible at all.

Hamas may be greatly weakened, but it is still capable of firing rockets toward Israel.

Meanwhile, the Israeli military recently re-entered northern Gaza, saying Hamas had reemerged in the area.

Shira Efron, another Middle East expert, said Sinwar’s killing gives Netanyahu the chance to claim victory.

“They can now say OK, we have won the war, we can wind down the war in Gaza and move towards a different reality on the ground,” she said.

But Netanyahu could instead frame Sinwar’s demise as the signal to intensify the conflict, she added.

“This all has to do with the political calculations of Netanyahu and his coalition,” she said.

Sinwar’s killing could also pave the way for a hostage and ceasefire agreement, since he was believed to be one of the main opponents of a deal.

Sinwar had little personal incentive to negotiate, given that he was Israel’s No. 1 target, Chorev said.

Hostage families are urging Netanyahu to push for a deal.

“If Netanyahu does not take advantage of the momentum and does not stand up now and present a new Israeli initiative, even at the cost of ending the war, it means that he has decided to abandon my Matan and the other hostages, with the aim of prolonging the war and fortifying his rule,” said Einav Zabgauker, whose son Matan is still in Gaza.

Uzi Rabi, also from Tel Aviv University, said the hostages should now be the top priority.

“Israel must do its utmost to get them back,” he said. “Without Sinwar, it might be little bit easier.”

What happens next will largely depend on Netanyahu.

The long-time prime minister has been trying to juggle the demands of his far-right coalition partners with pressures from the United States and Israel’s other allies to strike a ceasefire deal and minimize the devastating cost of the war on civilians in Gaza.

At the same time, he is personally facing several criminal investigations and large-scale protests calling for his resignation at home.

Critics of Netanyahu, including US President Joe Biden, have long voiced concerns that he may be dragging out the war in Gaza in an attempt to cling to power.

While still hugely unpopular among a large portion of Israeli society, Netanyahu has staged a remarkable turnaround over the past year, clawing back some of the support he had lost over the years.

Netanyahu has in the past insisted on Israel maintaining some military presence in Gaza after the immediate conflict is over.

And some of his coalition partners have gone as far as suggesting Israel should build Jewish settlements inside Gaza.

Rabi (from Tel Aviv University) said he believed some level of Israeli presence would be needed to prevent Hamas from rebuilding itself in the strip – something Israel’s allies have warned the government against.

“You have to take control of the civil infrastructure in order to empty Hamas of its authority and its legitimacy in the eyes of the Gazans,” he said.

“We should (work) with the Emiratis, with the Saudis, and the Americans and with Palestinians – other than Hamas, as to how to proceed from here,” he said.

Maybe this would be actually the opening shot for a different future for Palestinians and the Middle East.

Defence minister Yoav Gallant had previously criticized Netanyahu’s plan to keep Israeli military rule in Gaza, warning it would come with a heavy price.

Efron, the analyst, said Netanyahu has already gotten a boost from Israel’s successful operation targeting the leadership of Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based, Iran-supported militant group.

The killing of Sinwar will give him another lift – and a sense of vindication, she said.  

“He can now claim that everyone in the world told him not to go into Rafah and Sinwar was killed in Rafah,” she said, referring to the pressure Netanyahu faced from Israel’s allies before the military launched its invasion into Gaza’s southernmost city as some 1.2 million people sheltered there.

“It doesn’t mean that he [Sinwar] was in Rafah when the operation there started, but I think it lets Netanyahu justify his decisions in hindsight,” Efron said.

Chorev, from Tel Aviv University, added that Netanyahu could see Sinwar’s killing as a moment to cement his legacy.

Many Israelis blamed Netanyahu for the brutal October 7 attack. It was also Netanyahu that agreed to release Sinwar from an Israeli jail in a 2011 prisoner swap – a decision that came to haunt him.

“He didn’t want to be remembered as the one who just brought about October 7, but also the one who won the war of October 7. I think for him, this might be a major achievement,” Chorev said. “And if he’s wise, he will leave the office afterwards.”

But while Sinwar’s killing may have brought Hamas to perhaps its weakest moment, completely destroying the terrorist, militant group will not by itself guarantee a peaceful future to Israel and Palestine.

A year of intense bombardment and a deadly ground operation by Israel has turned Gaza into a wasteland.

Thousands of children have been orphaned, maimed, and traumatized.

Israel now needs to ensure they can have a better future – otherwise it risks creating another generation susceptible to radicalization.

Nobel Economics Prize: Studies of Prosperity Gaps Between Countries

Two economists and one political scientist were awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics for their research into how the nature of political institutions helps explain why some countries become rich and others remain poor.

Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson (both Massachusetts Institute of Technology/MIT) and James Robinson (University of Chicago) will share the prize, which carries a cash award of 11 million Swedish kronor (US Dollar $ 1 million).

“When Europeans colonized large parts of the globe, the institutions in those societies changed,” the committee said, citing the social scientists’ work. While in many places this was aimed at exploiting the indigenous population, in other places it laid the foundations for inclusive political and economic systems.

“The laureates have shown that one explanation for differences in countries’ prosperity is the societal institutions that were introduced during colonization,” the committee added.

Countries that developed “inclusive institutions” – which uphold the rule of law and property rights – have over time become prosperous, while those that developed “extractive institutions” – which, in the laureates’ words, “squeeze” resources from the wider population to benefit the elites – have experienced persistently low economic growth.

The introduction of more inclusive institutions, less extraction and the rule of law would create long-term benefits.

So why don’t the elite simply replace the existing economic system?

[In the case of Nepal, which was not a British colony, but where the Rana rulers practiced a form of ‘internal colonialism’, the rulers were not interested in reforming, as they perceived a threat to their own rule. Moreover, they were also not ‘enlightened’ enough.

In the modern era, the decision-makers – the new age robber barons have regularly and successfully managed to undermine whatever institutions were primarily established to their own benefit and ends.

The benefactors of an internal extractive process are not the people at large, but their own extremely small clientele.]

In their 2012 book “Why Nations Fail”, Acemoglu, a Turkish-American professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Robinson, a British professor at the University of Chicago, argue that some nations are wealthier than others because of their political and economic institutions.

The book opens with a comparison of living standards in two towns of the same name Nogales straddling the US-Mexican border – one in Arizona and another south of the border in Mexico’s Sonora region.

Whereas some economists have argued that differences in climate, agriculture and culture have huge impacts on a place’s prosperity, Acemoglu and Robinson convincingly argue that those living in Nogales, Arizona, are healthier and wealthier because of the relative strength of their local institutions (CNN/Christian Edwards, October 14).

Last year, Acemoglu and Johnson, a British-American professor also at MIT, published “Power and Progress”, a study of how technological innovations over the past 1,000 years, from agricultural advances to artificial intelligence (AI), have tended to benefit the elites, rather than creating prosperity for all (CNN).

The authors warned that “the current path of AI is neither good for the economy nor for democracy.”

Democracy equals growth?

Asked whether their research simply argues that “democracy means economic growth,” Acemoglu said “the work we have done favours democracy” but added that democracy “is not a panacea.”

“Our argument has been that this sort of authoritarian growth [as in China] is more unstable and does not generally lead to very rapid and original innovation,” Acemoglu said in a phone interview (CNN).

In “Why Nations Fail”, he and Robinson argued that China, because it lacks inclusive institutions, would not be able to sustain its economic growth.

More than a decade since the book’s publication, Acemoglu said China has posed a “bit of a challenge” to that argument, as Beijing has been “pouring investment” into the innovative fields of AI and electric vehicles.

“But my perspective is generally that these authoritarian regimes, for a variety of reasons, are going to have a harder time in achieving long-term, sustainable innovation outcomes,” he said.

[It could also be argued that the Chinese people have had to make immense sacrifices and make compromises with their quality of life because of the lack of democratic norms. For these reasons, some Chinese experts have argued for a relaxation of political pressure and more freedoms.]

The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com