Yassin’s assassination indicates Israel won’t drop its traditional security policy any time soon. But the fact that the Palestinian problem needs to be solved shows even Sharon cannot ignore the Palestinian factor

Israel’s US-backed strategic power in the Middle East evokes mixed feelings among Muslims: anger and grief underpinned by a sense of powerlessness. Israel can literally get away with murder. The recent murder of Hamas’ founder and spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Washington’s refusal to squarely condemn the Jewish state only reinforces this belief.

But Israel may be overheating. The more discerning among its political elite have genuinely begun to fear the state might cave in if it fails to steer its security policies in the right direction.

Last year, Israel’s military chief of staff, Moshe Ya’alon, surprised everyone by criticising Ariel Sharon’s government for depriving Palestinians of all hope. “In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interests,” he told an Israeli newspaper.

It was a powerful statement, come as it did from Israel’s top soldier whose hard-line credentials are well known and who initially supported fighting the Palestinian threat to the bitter end.

What made him change his mind?

Failure, it is said, is an orphan: Israel’s chief of staff seemed to have realised that his professionally trained soldiers (some of whom actually refused to serve in the Occupied Territories in the name of national security) had failed to suppress the Palestinian resistance. Perhaps he didn’t have much of an option but to criticise the policies of his government responsible for generating dozens of desperate suicide bombers.

Sharon’s policy of dealing with Palestinians has also drawn flak from political circles. Avraham Burg, former speaker of Knesset, proclaimed “the end of Zionist enterprise”, saying: “Here is what the prime minister should say to the people: the time for illusions is over. The time for decisions has arrived ... Between Jordan and the Mediterranean there is no longer a clear Jewish majority. And so, fellow citizens, it is not possible to keep the whole thing without paying a price.”

It won’t work, Burg warned, “even if the Arabs lower their heads and swallow their shame and anger forever”.

This changing public opinion in Israel is due to various factors, one of them being the demographic clock Jerusalem knows is ticking fast. The Jewish Policy Planning Institute told its government last year that the Arabs in the area would outnumber the Jews by 2015. Some Israeli analysts say this will leave their country with two options: Either to lose its Jewish character or cease to be a democracy. Viewed against this backdrop, Ariel Sharon’s “disengagement plan” should not surprise anyone. It seems that he wants to offer “painful concessions” by withdrawing from the Gaza Strip, dismantling some settlements on the West Bank and leaving a part of a moth-eaten “Palestinian state” behind the “security fence”.

The Palestinians have resisted this scheme since a country without geographical contiguity will remain at the mercy of its archrival. They want to have a viable state that can stand on its own both economically and militarily.

The second thing that created a tough situation for Israel is the war in Iraq! This is slightly hard to fathom since Jerusalem waited for the Iraq invasion more impatiently than Washington. But the American and Israeli interests in the region diverged to an extent when US-led coalition forces confronted the Iraqi resistance and the presidential elections drew closer in America. Two things happened: the Bush administration realised that Israel’s policies were creating a huge security threat for its forces and citizens in the Middle East and other parts of the world; and the US was condemned for siding with the Jewish state by the leaders of Old Europe who insisted that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute was becoming the matrix of international relations and must be resolved through mutual initiative.

It is not surprising that the Bush administration distanced itself from Israel when Sharon ordered a surgical strike against Syria in October last year. Similarly, Washington claimed after the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin that it was not in the know of things.

But Israel hasn’t merely been under pressure due to the changing global situation. It is also facing a tough situation internally. Sharon, widely recognised as one of the architects of Israel’s illegal settlements, has claimed they are vital for his country’s security. But while these settlements have cost his country both economically and diplomatically, they have made Israel more vulnerable than ever before.

So why doesn’t Israel dismantle them?

Sharon is troubled by the idea for two reasons. Firstly, the settlers believe Jews have the right to stay anywhere in the “Land of Israel”. Sharon shares this religious conviction, though more for political reasons (Jewish extremists form the core of Sharon’s Likud Party’s electorate). Secondly, some Israelis believe that dismantling settlements in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank will make the Palestinians ask for more. They may demand an Israeli pullout from other areas like Hebron, Haifa and Jaffa.

Sharon’s decision to kill Yassin should not surprise anyone, therefore. He signalled to the Palestinians that he hasn’t lost his nerve and earned points with some elements in among American Republicans who thought he was rewarding terrorism with his disengagement plan. Besides, he upstaged his rival, Benjamin Netanyahu, who he feared was becoming too popular at the Capitol Hill.

As the situation stands, Israel is grappling with the forces of continuity as well as change. Yassin’s assassination indicates it won’t drop its traditional security policy any time soon. But the fact that the Palestinian problem needs to be solved shows even Sharon cannot ignore the Palestinian factor.

The writer is Assistant Editor at Daily Times

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-3-2004_pg3_4