Mideast peace process after Yassin's killing

Mideast peace process after Yassin's killing

Muhamad Ali, Lecturer, State Islamic University (UIN),
Sharif Hidayatullah, Jakarta

The recent assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin -- the founder
and spiritual leader of Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement,
Harakat al-Muqawwama al-Islamiyya) -- by Israelis in Gaza,
certainly deepens the divide and worsens tension among those
involved in the Middle East peace effort. Among the Palestinian
and Arab world, revenge has been vowed and anti-Israeli sentiment
has become the common language in offices and on the streets.

For Ariel Sharon and his supporters, the murder was a blow to,
what they perceive as, antiterrorism efforts, comparable to the
American pursuit of al-Qaeda. Israel's objective was to root out
the radical elements. For Palestinians and all those who seek
peace in the Middle East, by this, Israelis are the peace
breakers.

World leaders in the European Union and the Arab and Muslim
world were shocked by the news and condemned this brutal and
illegal move. All agree that the assassination was against
international law. Even U.S. officials, under the pressure of
such widespread condemnation, criticized Israel, stating that the
assassination was "deeply troubling". The U.S said that the
action would do little for progress toward peace in the region.

The killing had particular impact for U.S. officials as they
had welcomed Israel's plans for "disengagement" from Gaza and
parts of the West Bank. U.S. officials said that the killing was
a mistake that would make Arab cooperation in the withdrawal more
difficult, particularly regarding Jordan and Egypt.

Since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, the peace
process in the Middle East has undergone ups and downs. Talks,
cease-fires, and attacks are endless phenomena. Little progress
has been made. One of the major obstacles for making progress has
been rejections from both parties, the Israelis and the
Palestinians. Likud Party has shown the most radical attitude
among the Israelis and tends to avoid compromise.

Hamas, on the other hand, promoted the rejection of the very
existence of the State of Israel and tended to avoid the need to
hold international conversations. In 1988, Hamas asserted that
"the Muslim Palestinian people reject the surrender solution and
international conferences, for these will not restore our
people's rights in their homeland... Liberation will not be
completed without sacrifice, blood, and jihad."

For Hamas, Palestine is a homeland that should not be shared
with the Israeli Jews. Hamas views the Israelis and their main
supporters and allies as "enemies". Yet, over the course of time,
Hamas has not become a monolithic movement and its ideology is
not entirely static. Two wings may be discerned: The religious
and the military, although both are connected in many respects.
Sheikh Yassin has been well known for his spiritual and religious
teachings, rather than for his military leadership and
involvement.

Yassin's "anti-colonial" ideology was born out of the Israeli
occupation. His family was among those who became refugees in
1948, and he grew up in the occupied territory. Rejectionist
ideology resulted from alienation from his land and property. "If
there was a choice between death and the loss of one's homeland,
one would choose death," said Sheikh Bitawi, another leader of
Hamas.

At the same time, the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood --
founded in 1928 -- greatly influenced the Islamic nature of
Hamas, but the occupation was the primary background of its rise
in 1988, and its development. The uprising by stones intifada was
among the main products of Hamas and has appealed to many
Palestinians and the international world. It has become an icon
of resistance against colonialism.

Given the characteristics of Hamas, any peace talks would not
bring about progress without the involvement of parties in
Palestine, including Hamas. It would be a huge mistake to
undermine the role of Hamas in peace talks, even though its
leaders tend to reject such conversations.

It is also a grave mistake to aim to crush Hamas. Hamas -- as
an icon of resistance -- has been omnipresent in Palestine and in
the Arab and Muslim world, despite disagreements in ideology and
strategy.

For a peace talk to make a difference, the task would not be
merely to moderate radical Palestinian attitudes, but also to
moderate the radical, militant elements of the Israeli government
and Jewish people, as rejectionism is not exclusively observed in
Palestinians. Therefore, U.S. and international pressure should
be directed toward both Palestinians and Israelis -- to restrain
from destructive moves and to compromise their total rejection of
others.

The role of Sheikh Yassin was so crucial that his absence will
have a great impact on the future of Hamas. Many believe that
there is no leader comparable to Yassin. However, younger
generations have become members or supporters of Hamas and it
seems likely that this generation will take over the leadership.

As a result of Israeli militant attitudes, the radicalization
of the Palestinian youth will be the main phenomenon in the
future. More and more attacks against Israelis are likely. And
the Israeli soldiers will be required to be both defensive and
offensive. Conflicts will be more severe and the number of
victims will increase.

However, despite the assassination, all parties should remain
optimistic about the future. There are some strategies that could
provide reason for hope. First, the participation of all parties
in the Middle East peace process is vital. No party should go its
own way.

Peace in the Middle East will not be realized unless all
parties are treated justly. The only hope for the future is the
coexistence of the two peoples based on equality and self-
determination.

Second, international intervention through detailed peace
strategies is desperately needed to prevent the increasing
episodes of violence, and to move toward reconciliation. The
United Nations should impress upon the Israelis that the killing
was destructive and counterproductive to the peace process. The
U.S. and international community should be more direct in
condemning the Israeli government whenever injustice occurs, not
just in acts carried out by Palestinian suicide bombers.

Third, a military strategy should not be an option at all.
Killings, attacks, terror, and other kinds of violence committed
by either side should come to an end. Dialog, compromise, and
reconciliation are the keys for the Middle East to make progress
toward long-term coexistence and peace.