Killing Yassin - Good for America?

Issue: 174

Only time will tell if Israel did the smart thing when it assassinated Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.  But as of today, the signs appear very mixed indeed.

The issue, of course, is not whether Israel had the right to take out Yassin. It did.  There is no nation on earth that would concede the right to eliminate anyone who was responsible for the death of its citizens.  And Yassin had ordered the deaths of hundreds of Israelis.

But the wisdom of exercising that right is a more troublesome proposition.

In the days following Yassin's assassination, it became all too clear that Israelis did not feel more secure. According to Yediot Achronot on Wednesday, "Deserted markets, empty buses and stores whose owners waited in vain for the arrival of customers -- these were the sights that could be seen yesterday in every corner of Israel's cities, the country that since Monday has become the land of fear."

By definition, there is less security in a land where people are afraid to leave their homes.  What is security if it is not the freedom to come and go as one pleases? It is that freedom that has disappeared in Israel, at least for the time being.

Even more troubling is what one Israeli writer referred to as the specter of the "walking dead."  He was referring to those people, alive today, who will be murdered in acts of retaliation for the Yassin killing.  These people - whether Israeli civilians or soldiers, American soldiers in Iraq, or Jews in the Diaspora -- do not know that they are marked for death to avenge Yassin. But they are.

It's a sobering thought although it does not necessarily mean that Israel acted wrongly in killing him.  After all, there are terrorists who are targeting Americans, Israelis, Spaniards and others regardless of what happens in the streets of Gaza City. Unfortunately this action may add to their ranks.

So why kill Yassin? Killing him was not necessary to neutralize him.  But it was killing him that will likely produce blowbacks against innocent people. Killing him does nothing to advance a peaceful end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  That will come only through negotiations with those Palestinian elements (and there are many)  ready and anxious to come to terms with Israel.  Yassin's killing only weakens those elements by adding to the sense of outrage and humiliation on the Palestinian street.

Defenders of the Israeli strike argue that the assassination of Yassin is no different than America's killing of Uday and Qusay or its goal of killing (or capturing) Osama bin Laden.  And in some ways that is true.  The Bush administration is on somewhat shaky ground when it criticizes Israel for taking an action which is similar to past (and, no doubt, future) US actions.

But there are some significant differences. The first is that Israel had the option of simply locking up Yassin.  He had been in an Israeli prison before he was released by Prime Minister Netanyahu.  At any time, Israeli forces could have simply moved into Gaza and taken him prisoner again.  He could have been held incommunicado for the rest of his life, thereby eliminating any possibility of ordering acts of terror from his cell. After all, the United States did not kill Saddam Hussein (even though it could have) and will not kill Bin Laden if it can take him alive.

The other difference between the United States and Israel - and the actions it can or should take - is that America is a superpower, separated from the rest of the world by two oceans.  Americans are, no doubt, put at increased risk when our government takes actions against Al Qaeda. But we do not live in the midst of a region in which Al Qaeda terrorists abound.

Even on the day following America's attack on Iraq a year ago, I doubt that a single American stayed home from work or away from shopping malls out of fear of retaliation.  Nor did our stock market drop.  Nor did foreign tourists cancel their travel plans to America in droves.  But that is what happened in Israel this week.

Israel is located at the center of the Arab world. An enraged radicalized Islam, on Israel's own borders, is a threat to every Israeli.  The last thing Israel needs is for secular Muslims (most Palestinians are in that category) to become soldiers for Islam.

There are other differences between the American superpower and a tiny nation like Israel.  Those differences should dictate more care about possibly increasing the risks faced by an already endangered population.  A government's number one responsibility is to protect its citizens.  Sometimes fulfilling that responsibility requires military action; but at least as often, it dictates restraint. Statesmen know the difference.

Taking out Yassin also creates problems for its superpower ally and protector, the United States. Dr. Raymond Tanter, who works for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and is close to the Bush administration, told the Christian Science Monitor that, "the assassination complicates the US position in the world and in the Middle East in particular."  Noting anti-American demonstrations even in friendly Arab capitals, Tanter said, "This complicates our standing and ability to work in friendly countries.  It puts off our ability to get the roadmap back on track, and it sets back the chances of getting the Middle East partnership initiative...revved up."

And then there is Iraq.  The Bush administration wants self-rule established in Iraq by June 30th. It also wants, at some point relatively soon, to begin bringing our troops home.  But neither goal can be accomplished if Iraq's Shiite majority turns against the United States.  That is why the administration has been so careful in its handling of the Shiite leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani.  It does not want him rallying Iraq's Shiites against US plans or, even worse, against US men and women in uniform. We need him.

But the Yassin assassination weakened the administration's hand with Sistani. A fellow Muslim cleric was assassinated with US-supplied weaponry and, not surprisingly, he was enraged.  "This morning, " he said, "the occupying Zionist entity committed an ugly crime against the Palestinian people by killing one of their heroes, scholar martyr Ahmed Yassin. We call 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."

Fortunately, he did not call on his people to avenge Yassin with attacks on Americans and Brits in Baghdad and Basra.  But there are no guarantees.

The Sharon government needs to consider the effects of its actions not just on Israel but on the United States.  No one would tell Israel that it cannot defend its own people without considering the wider impact.  But this may be a case in which US interests were harmed while Israeli security was not advanced at all.

MJ Rosenberg (email: mj847@aol.com), Director of Policy Analysis for Israel Policy Forum, is a long time Capitol Hill staffer and former editor of AIPAC's Near East Report.  If you have colleagues or friends who would appreciate receiving this weekly letter, send an e-mail to ipfdc@ipforumdc.org.

The views expressed in IPF Friday are those of MJ Rosenberg and not necessarily of Israel Policy Forum.