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.