Stephen Walt writes: What do the killing of influencer Charlie Kirk and Israel’s unsuccessful attempt to kill some top Hamas officials by bombing Qatar have in common? There are obvious and important differences: The former appears to have been an isolated act by an individual whose motives remain unclear, while the latter was a deliberate military action ordered by an elected government whose motives are obvious. Yet both acts can also be viewed as a symptom of the broader erosion of norms in contemporary politics, both between states and within them, and especially the tendency to see assassination as a legitimate political tactic.
Political killings are not a new phenomenon, of course. But as Ward Thomas showed in a seminal International Security article in 2000, for several centuries there was a remarkably effective norm against government leaders attempting to kill their counterparts in other countries…
Jettisoning the norm against assassination will discourage rivals from meeting—simply because doing so is perilous—thereby making it even harder to reach diplomatic solutions to ongoing conflicts. It will also discourage third parties from trying to aid such efforts. This is why Israel’s attack on Qatar was so foolhardy: In addition to further undermining Israel’s reputation as a responsible global actor, it will make some countries less willing to facilitate its diplomatic activities. All states must talk to their enemies on occasion, which usually requires neutral parties to facilitate the process. Violating Qatar’s sovereignty and the norm against assassination in this fashion throws more sand in the gears of international diplomacy at a time where we need more of it, not less. Israel’s willingness to attack a nominal U.S. ally without facing any discernible sanction from Washington also did additional damage to the United States’ tattered reputation in the region, though it is admittedly hard to see how it could sink much lower…
Lastly, the belief that it is perfectly OK to target and kill foreign officials with whom one is at odds makes it easier for some people to justify violent action against domestic political figures with whom they disagree. In both cases, potential targets are first demonized as the embodiment of evil and as a mortal threat to the nation. Once that label sticks, extreme measures to deal with them will seem permissible, maybe even necessary. If you’re American and are worried about the rising tide of violent political activity at home (which, contrary to the lies being uttered by Vice President J.D. Vance and other administration officials, comes overwhelmingly from the political right and not the left), then you should also worry about how the United States, some of its closest allies, and some other major powers have undermined the norm against assassination abroad.
