The killing of Sheikh Yassin

Precarious though it be to discuss events that take place thousands of miles away and in specific contexts the understanding of which often requires specialised knowledge, I believe we cannot be expected to consume such happenings passively. There would be no point in following "world news" if we were precluded from adding our voices to the global pool of debate and analysis. With this in mind, the following is my reading of the killing of Sheikh Yassin.

I am broadly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. However one chooses to interpret the Balfour declaration of 1917, the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and the other 20th century political and demographic processes that spawned the contemporary stalemate, I think there is a lot to be said for the recognition of some form of Palestinian autonomy and self-rule within their own state/territory. I do not think that the State of Israel is an undeserved sham; however, I also strongly feel it is unacceptable to treat Palestinians as some sort of strangers in the land they have inhabited for centuries. I have known and befriended a number of Palestinian refugees living in Malta and I find their plight deeply troubling.

This time, however, I really cannot bring myself to sympathise with the reaction of the Palestinians, and the many international organisations and national governments, to the killing of Sheikh Yassin. The reason is simple: Sheikh Yassin was at war with Israel and in a war you expect to be shot at as well as to shoot. Whether or not one believes that the Palestinians, and hamas in particular, are justified in their struggle has absolutely no bearing on the argument.

Sheikh Yassin was not simply a political leader. He may have been, as the BBC has described him, a "frail quadriplegic who could barely see", but he was a man with a very definite mission. This mission was to oppose the Israelis by violent means, through a jihad (Holy War) declared against the State of Israel. He opposed the Oslo peace process and has been quoted as saying that "the so-called peace path is not peace and it is not a substitute for jihad and resistance".

The fact that he was the spiritual leader of hamas does not change much. The main weapon of the organisation was and is martyrdom through suicide bombings and the main force behind martyrdom is the spirit. The logistics of suicide bombings are merely details that need to be filled in once the verve to sacrifice oneself is reached. Therefore, in the case of hamas, spiritual is also military. It is a well known fact that Sheikh Yassin's charisma has for several years been the inspiration behind the violent attacks of hamas.

As such, Sheikh Yassin satisfied all the criteria of a warrior who accepted the rules of war - in fact he was seen as such by everyone, whether Palestinian, Israeli, or American. Within the context of war people are expected to exchange shots. When warriors die in battle their supporters do not express anger but sadness at a fallen comrade.

I therefore fail to see why Palestinian organisations have reacted in disbelief and anger that Israel targeted Sheikh Yassin. Similarly I cannot understand Jack Straw's condemnation of the killing as "unacceptable" and "unjustified", the EU foreign ministers' description of it as "extra-judicial" or Kofi Annan's comment that it went against "international law". In as much as all killing is evil they are right but in the context of war they are wrong. Do these people seriously believe that in such a context one party has no right to target another? That Sheikh Yassin could despatch bombs but expect none in return?

For once I find myself perfectly in line with the American position. The Bush administration has officially said that it is "deeply troubled" by the killing but it has steered clear of condemning it. Much as I think that Israel had every right to kill Sheikh Yassin, I believe that the decision to do so may well turn out to have been a bad and rash one.

As the French Foreign Minister put it, the killing will probably "feed the spiral of violence"; that is, although hamas has consistently shown that it needs no excuses to attack Israelis, Sheikh Yassin's killing will in all probability spur it on.

At daybreak on March 22, Ariel Sharon must have faced a very tough conundrum indeed.

Dr Falzon is an anthropologist and lecturer in social science.