“If
Israel was established in Britain, would you accept compromise?”1 -
Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi
“Bush
cannot be trusted with the peace process when he allows his vision
of a viable, independent Palestinian state to become Sharon’s
vision of an apartheid-like state divided, with the use of
barbed-wire fences, concrete walls and checkpoints, into two systems
- an open and free one for illegal Jewish settlers and a segregated
subsystem for the indigenous Palestinian population.”
- Marwan Bishara, Lecturer, American University of Paris
 |
|
Al-Rantissi’s assassination: Decapitation strategy?
|
In
one of the most tumultuous moments in the history of the Middle
East, tens of thousands of Palestinians took to the streets in a
procession from Gaza’s Shifa hospital, less than twelve hours
after the assassination the enigmatic Hamas leader, Dr. Abdel Aziz
al-Rantissi. Fighters from all the main nationalist and Islamic
movements joined the procession, unleashing volleys of gunfire into
the air as the coffin began its journey towards al-Rantissi’s home
in the northern Al-Nasr suburb of Gaza City. In a popular display of
solidarity with the slain leader, hundreds of thousands marched in
demonstrations in Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, Jordan, and Egypt.
His assassination came only 25 days after the almost identical
killing of Hamas’ founder, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
As
with the killing of Sheikh Yassin, Israel was internationally
condemned for an assassination that Britain’s foreign minister
Jack Straw described as “unlawful, unjustified and
counterproductive.” But Israel was only interested in the White
House’s response, being that “Israel has the right to defend
itself from terrorist attacks.”2 Israeli cabinet minister Gideon
Ezra named Hamas’ political bureau chief Khalid Mishal as the next
target. Although Mishal lives in Syria, the Israeli minister
promised that his “fate will be identical to that of al-Rantisi.
When the opportunity comes to strike at Damascus, we will do it.
Israeli
policymakers do not want to appear weak in light of their expected
withdrawal from Gaza. But the assassination of al-Rantissi following
the killing of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin has more to do with a common
Israeli-American reading of regional politics, their long-term
strategy in the region, and the identical worldviews of the
decision-makers in Washington and Tel Aviv. Not only do the US and
Israel adopt similar military tactics in Palestine and Iraq (the use
of airpower to subdue opponents in crowded civilian areas in Gaza
and Fallujah) and similar rhetoric (fighting terrorism), but they
share a common grandiose design on the region that far surpasses any
previous form of strategic cooperation between both states.
In
that respect, the assassination of al-Rantissi is symbolic of Bush
and Sharon’s desire to perpetuate a system of domination and
occupation of Arab and Muslim land, where the elimination of all who
oppose this system is routinely justified.
The
End of the Official Arab System
 |
|
Archive photo of Bush and Sharon
|
Given
the strategic impasse in the Middle East, the assassination comes as
no surprise. Bush and Sharon consider the region a geopolitical
vacuum in which Arab and Muslim interests are insignificant. The
profound differences between Arab states on issues such as Arab
reform, democratization and the 2002 Arab peace plan, and the last
minute cancellation of the Arab Summit in Tunisia confirms that Arab
regimes are incapable of adopting a unified stance on basic issues,
let alone a confrontationalist stance. A senior Israeli official
welcomed the collapse of the Arab summit as “a positive sign which
shows that the Arab world is changing and that hostility to Israel
is no longer a sufficient common denominator.”6
Arab
armies have ceased to act as professional militaries protecting the
state from external threats, but have turned into bloated guardians
of incumbent regimes, fulfilling domestic police functions such as
suppressing demonstrations and the pursuit of “terrorists.”7
Moreover, continuous official Arab reiteration that “peace is our
strategic choice” and the regimes’ propagation of a defeatist
culture amidst Arab audiences has further emboldened Bush and
Sharon.
Such
failures send a clear message to Bush and Sharon that the Arabs, for
all their numbers, oil wealth, inflated military budgets and their
large numerous educated elites, have not been able to prevent or
hinder US-Israeli encroachment upon their territories, the
systematic killing of their citizens, or the forcible appropriation
of their resources.8
Bush
and Sharon - both avid realists and right-wing politicians - believe
that military force is the ultimate currency of international
relations. Sharon is known to be a student par excellence of
Israel’s foremost right wing ideologue, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, who in
1923 articulated the view that native Palestinians must live
“behind an iron wall which they will be powerless to break
down.”9 George Bush is known for being influenced by right-wing
pro-Israeli conservatives whose views on the Arab/Muslim world are
no less contemptuous.
Israel’s strategy aims to decapitate Hamas.
|
|
As
long as Sharon and Bush do not find a viable counter-hegemonic force
in the region, they will continue to pursue their expansionist
objectives. It is noteworthy that American officials only
contemplated serious negotiations with the people of Fallujah and
Moqtada al-Sadr when military operations failed to subdue Iraqi
rebels and scores of US soldiers were killed in the process. On the
other hand, some Israeli and Palestinian commentators have argued
that Hamas’ failure to retaliate in time after the assassination
of Sheikh Yassin contributed at least in part to Israel’s decision
to assassinate al-Rantissi.10 In other words, a display of Iraqi
strength served to deter the Americans from pursuing their
objectives, whereas a mild Palestinian military reaction to
Yassin’s death encouraged Israel to proceed with al-Rantissi’s
assassination.
The
New Balfour Declaration
In
many ways, the US administration gave Israel a “green light” to
hit Hamas. In a press conference on the eve of his meetings with
Sharon, Bush mentioned the “Hamas and Hizbullah terror
organizations” in connection with America’s new lethal Iraqi
enemy Moqtada al-Sadr. The following day, Bush wrote in his letter
to Sharon that Israel had a right to self-defense against terrorism,
“including taking action against terror groups.” The Israeli
daily Ma’ariv also leaked a story of a White House
official who, after the liquidation of Yassin, asked an Israeli
colleague: “What about al-Rantissi?”11
The
timing of al-Rantissi’s assassination could not have been more
provocative. A few days prior to the assassination, George Bush had
approved Ariel Sharon’s requests during the latter’s visit to
the White House. Calling Sharon’s plan to unilaterally withdraw
from Gaza “courageous,” Bush said it was unrealistic to expect
Israel to withdraw all settlements from West Bank lands seized in
1967, or to accept the return of millions of Palestinian refugees
from the 1948 partition.12
By
endorsing those three aspects of Sharon’s unilateral approach to
dealing with the Palestinians - Israeli withdrawal from Gaza only,
permanent retention of some major Israeli settlements in the West
Bank, and an end to the “right of return” of millions of
Palestinian refugees - George Bush has done away with two decades of
US policy and made a mockery of UN resolutions. If Sharon’s plan
were to actually be implemented, the Palestinians would be granted a
bare minimum of territory, on which no viable sovereignty could be
established - particularly when their “state” will be a
subdivided Bantustan entirely surrounded by Israeli territory and
under almost total Israeli economic and military domination.
The Bush-Sharon communiqué is the historical equivalent of the 1917 Balfour Declaration.
|
|
Some
have noted that Sharon’s strategy involves evicting as many
Palestinians as possible and concentrating them in crowded
residential enclaves.13 Others have pointed out that under Sharon’s
proposed plan the remaining settlements would hold approximately
92,000 of the 220,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza
Strip, leaving the Palestinians in “control” of no more than 50%
to 60% of the West Bank.14
Sharon
and Bush’s dismissal of the Palestinian leadership and their
dictating of policy indicate a highly condescending attitude towards
the Palestinians - despite the fact that many Palestinian Authority
(PA) figures have played along with even the most questionable
US-brokered peace agreements in the past. The only negotiations that
went into Sharon’s plan occurred within the ranks of Israel’s
ruling Likud party, and between it and the Bush administration. Arab
leaders were informed of Israel’s plans by Washington and were
either asked to help out or told of their “responsibilities,”
but their objections were largely ignored.15
The
Bush-Sharon communiqué is the historical equivalent of the 1917
Balfour Declaration in which then-superpower Britain promised the
Jews a national homeland in Palestine, disregarding the aspirations
of native Arabs and the objections of Muslims worldwide.
Conclusions
The
assassination of al-Rantissi is unlikely to weaken Hamas’
popularity among Palestinians. Hamas is a huge movement with tens of
thousands of supporters from all socio-economic strata of
Palestinian society.16 Al-Rantissi’s death will provide Hamas with
more supporters and further radicalize Palestinian society.
However,
given recent events in Iraq, the assassination of al-Rantissi is
also likely to fuel Arab frustration and anger at Israel and the US.
Indeed, fallout from Yassin’s assassination reached as far as the
Khyber Pass in Pakistan, where demonstrations took place against the
killing. Yassin’s assassination also prompted Grand Ayatollah
al-Sistani in Iraq, to denounce what he described as an “ugly
crime,” calling upon “the sons of the Arab and Islamic nations
to close ranks, unite and work hard for the liberation of the
usurped land and restore rights.”17
An
environment rife with Arab-Muslim rage will ultimately help al-Qaeda
recruit more supporters and sideline Arab “moderates.” The Bush
administration’s explicit endorsement of Sharon’s plan just days
before the assassination of al-Rantissi only confirmed mainstream
opinion in the Arab world that Israel and the US are two sides of
the same coin.
Interestingly,
Sharon seeks to force the Palestinians to live under the shadow of a
metaphorical “iron wall” imposed by Israel’s conventional
military and nuclear supremacy, in addition to the very real
concrete barrier being constructed to further suffocate the
Palestinians. Simultaneously, Bush is working to force the entire
Muslim world to live under the shadow of the “iron wall” of the
world’s largest military. Perhaps there is a lesson for Arab
regimes to learn from the people of Fallujah.
Kareem
M. Kamel is an Egyptian freelance writer based in Cairo,
Egypt. He has an MA in International Relations and is specialized in
security studies, decision- making, nuclear politics, Middle East
politics and the politics of Islam. He is currently assistant to the
Political Science Department at the American University in Cairo.
1
Derek Brown, “Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi,” Guardian Unlimited
April 19th, 2004
2
Leader, “The Legacy of Lebanon,” Guardian
Unlimited April 19th, 2004
3
“Rantisi Buried as Israel Vows More
Killing,” Al-Jazeera (English) April 18th, 2004
4
Derek Brown, “Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi,” Guardian Unlimited
April 19th, 2004
5Leader,
“The Legacy of Lebanon,” Guardian Unlimited April 19th,
2004
6
“
