On July 31, Ismail Haniyeh, leader of the political wing of Hamas, was assassinated in Tehran, where he was attending the inauguration of Iran’s newly elected President, Masoud Pezeshkian. Initial reports suggested that Haniyeh was killed by an airstrike, possibly by a drone. However, The New York Times later reported that he was killed after a bomb was remotely detonated in his temporary residence (interestingly, Ziyad al-Nakhalah, leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, was staying in an adjacent room but emerged unscathed).

Haniyeh’s death is the latest in a string of assassinations targeting high-ranking officials of the so-called “Axis of Resistance,” including senior Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr, who was killed in Beirut by an airstrike on July 30. Although Israel has claimed responsibility for several of these killings, Tel Aviv ha neither confirmed nor denied its involvement in Haniyeh’s death. Similarly, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken quickly dismissed the possibility of American involvement, a stance echoed by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Nonetheless, Austin reaffirmed that the United States “will defend Israel,” alluding at the renewed tension between Tehran and Tel Aviv, which already flared up in April with a direct missile exchange.

In response to these events, Chinese officials and commentators reiterated their usual opposition to violence and calls for dialogue. Unsurprisingly, they also highlighted Beijing’s recent mediation efforts between Palestinian factions, which culminated in the signing of the so-called “Beijing Declaration” on July 23.

Chinese experts also generally agreed that Israel has no genuine interest in finding a viable solution to the conflict. Moreover, while Haniyeh’s assassination has dealt a blow to Hamas’ diplomatic efforts, they believe its military capacity remains unaffected. Amid growing concerns over escalating tensions, some Chinese analysts even acknowledged the limits of Beijing’s diplomatic efforts.

Beijing’s Official Position

On the day of Haniyeh’s death, the immediate official Chinese response, rather unsurprisingly, was a condemnation of the assassination and a call for an immediate ceasefire. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian, subtly implying Israel's involvement, stated:

“China has always advocated resolving regional disputes through negotiations and dialogues. Gaza should achieve a comprehensive and permanent ceasefire as soon as possible to avoid further escalation of conflicts and confrontations.”^[1]

Chinese diplomacy mobilized and, complying with Iran’s request, China joined Algeria and Russia in calling for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council, which was convened on July 31 to address the situation. At this meeting, China’s representative, Ambassador Fu Cong, condemned the assassination as a “blatant destruction of peace efforts” and a “wanton violation of the basic principles of the UN Charter.”^[2]

Fu also denounced the attack that killed Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr, attributing it to Israel and describing it as part of a “series of irresponsible actions that have occurred recently.”^[3] Regarding the ongoing war in Gaza, Fu urged Israel to immediately implement the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions, halt all military actions in Gaza, and, quoting Chinese leader Xi Jinping, “stop the collective punishment of the people of Gaza.” In his remarks, Fu, much like other Chinese diplomats, emphasized how resolving the Palestinian question is central to bringing an end the conflicts in the Middle East, stating:

“The direct reason for the continued deterioration of the situation in the Middle East is that the ceasefire and end of the fighting in Gaza has not been implemented. We urge all parties to follow the overwhelming consensus of the international community and jointly promote an immediate ceasefire, save lives, alleviate disasters, and curb the spillover of conflicts.”^[4]

Haniyeh’s death occurred against the backdrop of China’s recent mediation efforts between Hamas, Fatah and 12 other Palestinian factions. On July 23, after three days of talks in Beijing, all 14 Palestinian groups signed the “Beijing Declaration on Ending Division and Strengthening Palestinian National Unity,” or simply, the “Beijing Declaration.” According to this agreement, all parties agreed to form a “temporary [Palestinian] national unity government” and recognize the authority of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (this declaration was dismissed both by Israeli officials and experts).^[5]

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who hosted the signing ceremony, described the Declaration as “a historic moment for the cause of Palestine’s liberation.” He also outlined a “three-step approach” to resolving the Palestinian question based on China’s well-established positions: first, an immediate ceasefire; second, adherence to the principle of “Palestinians governing Palestine”; and third, promoting Palestine's full membership in the UN by implementing the “two-state solution.”^[6]

Therefore, it was no surprise that when the Foreign Ministry addressed Haniyeh’s assassination again on August 1, the spokesperson referred to China’s efforts to achieve reconciliation between the various Palestinian factions:

“China has always supported internal reconciliation in Palestine and believes that achieving internal reconciliation in Palestine is an important step in promoting the resolution of the Palestinian issue and achieving peace and stability in the Middle East. China appreciates the efforts made by various Palestinian factions to reach the Beijing Declaration and sincerely hopes that the various Palestinian factions will realize the establishment of an independent Palestinian state at an early date on the basis of internal reconciliation. China will continue to make unremitting efforts to this end together with all parties concerned.”^[7]

On August 2, after an Israeli airstrike against targets in Beirut, China issued a brief communiqué:

“China condemns any act that harms civilians and expresses deep concern over the current situation. We call on all parties concerned to remain calm and restrained and avoid further escalation of tensions.”^[8]

The Media and Expert Debate

Most Chinese experts believe the killing was deliberate, with Israel being the most likely culprit. Ningxia University’s Professor Niu Xinchun pointed out that Israel not only has the political motives and the military capabilities to execute such an operation, but its past behavior also suggests its involvement. As he put it:

“History demonstrates that when such incidents take place and Israel neither confirms nor denies responsibility, the likelihood of Israel's involvement is very high.”^[9]

Wang Jin, the Director of the Center for Israel Studies at Northwestern University, did not rule out the possibility of an accident but argued that “judging from existing experience and common sense,” this event is “consistent with the characteristics of a series of activities carried out by Israel in Iran.”^[10]

Some experts, including Senior Colonel Chen Hu, criticized the use of the term “targeted assault” (清点清楚) by some Western outlets as opposed to “assassination” (暗杀). Colonel Chen, citing Chinese idiom “马户他就是驴，又鸟他就是鸡” (it has a similar meaning to the English expression “if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck”), stated that:

“Assassination is assassination. No matter how you frame it, it remains a dirty thing.”^[11]

Against this background, Ningxia University’s Professor Li Shaoxian underscored the debate surrounding the precise method and circumstances behind Haniyeh’s assassination. Whether the attack involved a missile or drone launched from a distance, or a detonation within Iranian borders, both scenarios prompt significant and troubling questions. Han Jianwei, an Associate Professor of Shanghai International Studies University, blamed negligence. Han argued that Haniyeh’s security team may have mistakenly relaxed their guard, assuming that being in a friendly country like Iran would guarantee their safety.

Conversely, scholars like Niu Xinchun and Wang Jin instead highlighted the prowess of Israeli intelligence rather than deficiencies in Haniyeh’s security. Niu noted media reports that Haniyeh’s phone was infected with spyware and argued that intelligence operations are multifaceted, incorporating satellites, software, and human sources. Given the secretive nature of intelligence work, Israel is unlikely to reveal its methods for gathering information.^[12] In support of the above thesis Wang Jin posited:

“As a Hamas leader and a significant foreign figure for Iran, Haniyeh should have had relatively strong security. Therefore, targeting Haniyeh required substantial intelligence and opportunity. Action could only be taken when the right opportunity arose.”^[13]

Li Li from the People’s Liberation Army National Defense University also supported this perspective, arguing that the timing of the assassination—just hours after Haniyeh's meeting with Iran’s Supreme Leader—was specifically designed to shake Iran’s confidence in its security and to dissuade Israel’s enemies.^[14]

While not dismissing the point made by Wang Jin and Li Li, military expert Du Wenlong, Niu Xinchun and Li Shaoxian argued that Israel did not trade Haniyeh’s life merely for increased security.^[15] As Niu explained in an interview:

“What Israel achieves by repeatedly assassinating Hamas leaders is only fueling the hatred of the Palestinian people against Israel.”^[16]

Additionally, Niu Xinchun suggested that the attack should be understood in the context of the recent ceasefire negotiations, wherein both Israel and the US displayed a positive attitude. This environment might have led Haniyeh and his security team to let their guard down, creating an opportunity for the strike.^[17] According to Niu, this reflects a shift in Israel’s priorities:

“From Israel’s perspective, it is clear that the goal of 'completely eradicating Hamas' has taken precedence over 'achieving a temporary cease-fire’.”^[18]

In a later interview, Niu offered two distinct possible rationales behind the assassination. One possibility is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, amidst ongoing ceasefire negotiations, intends to prolong the conflict by eliminating one of the key negotiators from the opposing side. Alternatively, Netanyahu might be aiming to hasten the war’s end by strategically eliminating all major Hamas leaders from the equation, thereby demonstrating a decisive Israeli victory.^[19]

From Hamas’ perspective, Chinese experts agreed that while Haniyeh’s death was a significant political and diplomatic setback, it did not degrade the group's military capabilities. For example, Li Shaoxian argued that Haniyeh’s role was primarily focused on external communication and had little to do with the day-to-day management of Hamas. Supporting this view, Associate Researcher Su Xiaohui from the China Institute of International Studies added that “killing the leader of the political wing of Hamas inflicted little to no harm to the combat capabilities of the military wing.”^[20]

Niu Xinchun instead acknowledged that Haniyeh was prominent figure.^[21] Wang Jin also pointed out that Haniyeh played a crucial role in connecting Hamas with the other members of the “Axis of Resistance” in the region.^[22] His strong ties with Iran, they argued, was what made him a target. Moreover, as a founding member of Hamas who led the group to win the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, Haniyeh was an important and authoritative figure among Palestinian politicians.^[23] However, Niu suggested Haniyeh’s death is likely to harden armed resistance. He also noted that Israel, which has traditionally favored a military approach, is unlikely to return to the negotiating table, no matter how counterproductive this approach may be:

“Advocating for armed struggle against radicals tends to increase support for them, whereas advocating for negotiations with moderates to establish peace and a Palestinian state poses Israel with an awkward dilemma.”^[24]

Han Jianwei noted that the Gaza War has significantly weakened Hamas’ military strength, which might force the group to reconsider its strategy. He posited that Hamas could merge with Lebanese Hezbollah or Iraq’s pro-Palestinian militias. However, regarding the impact of Haniyeh’s death, Han too appears dismissive:

“He […] is undoubtedly a most core figure, and [therefore] his death is a heavy blow to the unified command ability of the Hamas top leaders. Still, the power structure of Hamas is somewhat like an umbrella framework, […] so Hamas will identify a new leader and continue the struggle.”^[25]

Regarding possible implications on the negotiations, Professor Niu Xinchun and Su Xiaohui anticipate a halt in the process since “Hamas will not be able to negotiate a ceasefire with Israel in the most immediate future.”^[26] Niu added that, following the removal of three of the highest-ranking Hamas leaders, Israel is likely to focus on taking out the next in-line, Yahya Sinwar, the military leader of Hamas in Gaza. According to him, the assassinations of Haniyeh, Deif and others showcase Israel’s patience and strategic planning.[27]

Some Chinese analysts also suggested that the assassination has not only complicated Israeli-Palestinian relations but regional security dynamics. Li Li pointed out that killing Haniyeh in the Iranian capital has likely alarmed the regime’s leaders, considering that previous successful assassinations were carried out mostly outside Iran. She argued that a likely motivation behind Tel Aviv’s actions could be to drive a wedge between Iran and its proxies.^[28]

Su Xiaohui predicted that Iran may respond with some form of retaliatory action, while Wang Jin suggested that the assassination “may lead to a new round of intensified conflicts.”^[29] Li Shaoxian speculated that Iran might retaliate similarly to its response to the April 1 attack against its embassy complex in Damascus, or through a coordinated attack by its proxies. Li warned that either scenario risks escalating the conflict between two countries, though he argued that “neither Israel, nor Iran wishes a war.”^[30] Su Xiaohui also contended that the timing of the assassination and Israel’s retaliatory bombings in Beirut is also not mere coincidence. Niu Xinchun predicted that Israeli strikes against Lebanese military targets, and ports and airports are likely to continue. However, expert opinions seem to favor a measured retaliation over the likelihood of a full-scale war between Hezbollah and Israel.^[31]

Haniyeh’s Death and Beijing’s Diplomatic Efforts

Naturally, Chinese media coverage of Ismail Haniyeh’s death also underscored and discussed Beijing’s active role in hosting intra-Palestinian talks. As the leader of Hamas’ political wing, Ismail Haniyeh had built relationships with various foreign actors, including Chinese diplomats. Notably, he met Chinese Ambassador Wang Kejian in Qatar in March to exchange views on the war in Gaza. Liu Chang, an assistant researcher at CIIS, posited that this meeting marked the beginning of China’s deeper involvement in Palestinian politics.^[32]

Chinese analysts continued to advocate for the two-state solution as the most viable resolution to the crisis. Niu Xinchun asserted:

“Achieving piece [in the region] is only possible through the implementation of the ‘two-state solution.’ To implement the ‘two-state solution,’ Palestine has to be established, and the premise of an established Palestinian state is the internal reconciliation and unity of Palestinians.”^[33]

Li Yanan, Deputy Director of the Middle East Research Institute at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), acknowledged that while the Beijing Declaration was an important milestone, further actions are required to achieve its goals, including the two-state solution. She posited:

“If the Israeli-Palestinian question is a lock, then the ‘two-state solution’ is the key to open the lock. And if so, the issue is that this key has to be adjusted continuously so at the end it will be able to open the lock .”^[34]

Despite this, few Chinese commentators have addressed whether and how Haniyeh’s death event undermines Chinese diplomatic efforts. For example, Tang Zhichao, Director of the Middle East Development and Governance Research Center of the Institute of West Asian and African Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, simply argued that China advocates for a common and cooperative “collective security look” for the region, which favors the political method of dialogue to resolve problems, rather than military intervention or coercion.^[35]

Li Yanan asserted that China’s approach to security is not confined to specific regions but is a global principle. She mentioned the common themes and slogans in Chinese diplomatic rhetoric, arguing that resolving issues through negotiations, favoring equal dialogue, and seeking common ground in pursuing national interests are central to Xi Jinping’s vision of a “Shared Future for Mankind.” For her, this principle underpins the three global initiatives proposed by Xi Jinping: the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative.

That said, Senior Colonel Chen Hu offered a more realistic assessment of the situation, arguing that the Beijing Declaration is only the first step toward the creation of a future Palestinian state. As he argued:

“Without the Beijing Declaration, there is no Palestinian unity, […] the Beijing Declaration is not something that China wants to force on someone, […] China can only direct a way, but whether Palestinians will walk on it, and how will they walk on it, is still up to them.”^[36]

With Yahya Sinwar, widely regarded the architect behind the October 7 attack on Israel, now stepping into Haniyeh’s role, the situation might become even more complicated. Fudan University’s Sun Degang remarked that the new leader has no interest in compromising, and this significantly hinders efforts to find a politico-diplomatic solution.^[37]

It would be surprising if, beneath the celebratory narrative, these concerns about the future are not widely shared among Chinese experts and officials.

Conclusion

The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh sparked a strong reaction in China. Chinese diplomats vehemently denounced the act, while experts warned of heightened instability in the Middle East. Noting Israel military’s capabilities, the prevailing sentiment among all Chinese commentators and officials is that Tel Aviv is to blame for this latest escalation. In this context, the Chinese narrative seems poised to portray any retaliatory action by Iran or its proxies as justified and defensive, while continuing to place blame on Israel and, implicitly, on the United States.

Regarding China’s role in the region, there is no doubt that Haniyeh’s assassination was perceived as a setback, given his key role in Hamas’ diplomatic efforts and prominence within the organization. Moreover, Chinese experts believe his death cannot but make China’s primary stated goal of reaching a two-state solution more difficult to achieve.

‍

Ádám KOI is Research Fellow at the ChinaMed Project. He is a PhD candidate in Sinology at ELTE Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest. His primary areas of research are China's governance and administrative system, and China’s foreign policy and economic strategy.

Dr. Andrea GHISELLI is Head of Research of the ChinaMed Project. He is also Assistant Professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs of Fudan University. His research focuses on Chinese foreign and security policy making and China’s policy toward the Middle East and North Africa.