Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
The Tufts Daily
Where you read it first | Sunday, November 17, 2024

What's happening in the Middle East?

The assassination of the Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin created a rather expected atmosphere of anti-Israeli and anti-American hatred in the Arab world. The interpretations for this act of the Israeli armed forces are tough. But there has to be one. It is not possible to easily accept the interpretation that Ariel Sharon suddenly lost his mind and decided to unilaterally demolish any option for cooperation and peace in the Middle East, making at the same time dozens of leaders, economic interests and facilities in the West, Israel and the United States "legal targets" for extremist Muslims.

The more narrow interpretation of this action could be the domestic political survival of the Israeli prime minister. Through the option of drastic retaliation against terrorism, Sharon probably targets the cohesion of a nation that feels surrounded, and in a desperate defense against blind attacks of destruction. The Israelis do not see any evolution or any prospect for peace. The only thing that they are left with is a type of retaliation -- which makes them even more defensive. Is it possible that Sharon betted on exactly this feeling?

The negative aspect of this interpretation would be nearly total isolation of Sharon by the West. At a time when Europe is not willing to face the deadly initiatives of al Qaeda dynamically, but chooses the path of discourse and truce (e.g. the reaction of the Spanish people), the increase of violence by Israel causes isolation rather than sympathy. Even the United States could not be able to respond positively in any Israeli militarist initiatives. Otherwise, the only plan that is left for the American president as the sole basis for justifying the war in Iraq is wiped out.

If we accept that Ariel Sharon was not out of his mind, then what other interpretation can be given to the attack against the Palestinian religious leader? Two cases can be made: The one has to do with the assessment of the Israelis that the Palestinian resistance has been curbed and that few strikes against higher hierarchy levels will kneel down the reactions and force the Palestinians to a truce. The validity of this explanation will be tested in the near future. If it holds, there will be other strikes against crucial Palestinian leadership targets. In this case, even Arafat might not be excluded as a target of such a strike.

The second explanation is much more complex. A short retrospect in history is necessary. Hamas was the creation of the secret services of Israel -- with the help of the CIA -- when the Islamic fundamentalists where not yet a serious disturbance for the Western policy makers. Much like the secret service of Pakistan is responsible for the creation of the Taliban and the other Afghan-Arab teams surrounding Bin Laden, Hamas was established in the Palestinian territories after the Muslim Brotherhood was destroyed (so that Arafat would be confronted with Islamic skeptics of his absolute power on the Palestinian people.)

Adopting completely extreme and radical positions, Hamas, under the leadership of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, often exposed Arafat -- torpedoing his compromising moves and doubting the right of existence of an Israeli state. It is important that Hamas supports the establishment of a Palestinian state to use it against the ultimate destruction of Israel. The independence of Hamas and its unilateral actions of violence and extremism was completed after the attacks of Sept. 11. It was then revealed in the United States that Hamas was gathering funds legally inside the United States for the fruition of its purposes. Walking on the path of extremism, Sheikh Yassin saw this type of violence as the only means for the creation of an Islamic state on the territories Israel had "stolen."

With the presence of Hamas, and especially of the Sheikh himself, it would be practically impossible for Arafat and all other moderate Palestinian leaders to move on to some kind of an agreement for the solution of the Middle Eastern question. Due to the autonomy of Hamas, any compromise or step made by Arafat was stalled because of Hamas opposition and response with suicide bombings. Was this attack then a step towards the materialization of a plan for the final conclusion of a solution? That is a dire thought at these times of panic. The future will show.

If Hamas does not retaliate against the destruction of high levels of internal hierarchy, and Arafat after a period of time appears more certain and firm, then the assassinations will acquire different meaning. If Israel intensifies, without serious Islamic retaliation, the deadly attacks against Palestinian leaders, it is obvious that the other interpretation holds -- bearing a huge cost not only for the West but also for the future of any international war against terrorism.

Regardless of any scenarios, the political end of Sharon is already approaching.

Theofanis Exadaktylos is a senior majoring in International Relations