I mean, it’s usually used to undermine a cause by killing their leaders, but their death can also cause them to become a martyr and get even more support. Which is generally true for the majority of assassinations?
Why I asked? Because recent events in Ecuador got me wondering.
It depends on the context and the motivation. The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, for instance, I’d argue was a success – it halted any momentum the reconciliation movement had at the time, and led to the situation we’re in today. Would talks have broken down anyway? Who’s to say.
By contrast, the assassination of JFK, though the purpose is unknown, allowed Johnson to galvanise his party in support of a raft of measures.
There is no question that the assassination of Rabin was a “success”. The assassin had a political objective that was met completely and the politicians that were obviously, intentionally inciting violence (in a plausibly deniable way of course) are in control of the government.
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2016-11-13/ty-article/editorial-netanyahu-cant-wash-his-hands-of-incitement/0000017f-dbcf-d3a5-af7f-fbefa96d0000
True; my only question is whether it was inevitable that peace talks would have broken down anyway, and all the assassination did was slightly hasten the collapse. It’s like the question of whether the assassination of Ferdinand caused WWI. No-one would argue that it wasn’t the trigger, but in the counterfactual case tensions were so high that a conflict was really inevitable.