• by Brendan O`Neill (spiked)

Many in the anti-war movement claim that Israel is the powerhouse behind American foreign policy; US historian Paul Schroeder even claims that the war in Iraq was the `first instance where a great power [America] did the fighting as the proxy of a small client state [Israel]`.

Left-wing journalist John Pilger says Israel is `the guard dog of America`s plans for the Middle East`, and the `guiding hand behind Bush`s bellicose campaign against the "nuclear threat" posed by Iran`. Radical author David Hirst writes of the `Israelisation of American foreign policy`

The assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Islamic group Hamas, and more importantly the reaction to it, has exposed this fantasy vision of Israel. In the real world, Israel does not have a free hand to dominate the Middle East, backed to the hilt by America - rather, it is an isolated regime, which increasingly launches military action out of desperation.

Israel`s actions today seem to be driven more by a fearful siege mentality than by a strategy of bold Empire building.

Israel`s assassination of Yassin by helicopter gunship in the Gaza Strip was widely condemned. UK government officials described it as `unlawful`; the European Union said it had wrecked any `prospect for peace in the region`. Even the Bush administration said it was `deeply troubled` by the killing and let it be known that there are `limits to its tolerance for Israel`.

The front pages of Britain`s broadsheets showed photos of angry Palestinians under headlines such as `The call for bloody revenge` and `The cry of vengeance`; the conservative Financial Times described the killing as `extremely stupid`. Some reports highlighted Yassin`s frail nature, in contrast to brutish Israel: `Death in a wheelchair` says the headline on Slate; another article reported one Palestinian`s view that this was a `cowardly execution` of a `frail old man in a wheelchair`.

Israel`s actions were certainly reckless, killing not just Yassin as he travelled to a mosque but also six people around him and wounding 17 bystanders. But the killing of Yassin - like the building of a 200-mile fence around the West Bank and the bombing of Damascus in October 2003 - looks like a sign of weakness and isolation on Israel`s part, rather than signifying a gung-ho militarism.

Israel`s fence, its reliance on assassinations from on high, its increasing reluctance to send soldiers into Palestinian territories in large numbers, highlight its defensive posture in the peace process - where it seems keen to shut itself off from hostile forces, to take potshots at them from afar, rather than engage and defeat them as it might have done in the past.

The assassination of Yassin comes at a time when Israel is drawing up plans to withdraw from Gaza and to dismantle its settlements there; it is effectively leaving, and throwing bombs over its shoulder as it goes, in an attempt to keep the enemy at bay.

The killing of Yassin may have been `unilateral`, in the sense that Israel didn`t get approval from the United Nations beforehand - but these days Israel rarely justifies such actions as being in its own interest or as a defence of its sovereignty and territory. It no longer talks about `defending Zionism` from the enemy without, as it did in the past. Rather, Israeli leaders now piggy-back on the `war on terror` to justify attacking their enemies. Israelis have sought to situate Yassin`s assassination within the `international war against terrorism`.

Israel feels itself increasingly isolated on the world stage, viewed by many as an archaic regime stuck in a colonial past, a symbol of national sovereignty and self-interest in an age more comfortable with notions of multilateral humanitarian intervention. Forced to adapt to this climate, the Israeli authorities appear incapable of justifying their retaliatory strikes on their own terms and in their own interests, instead turning to the West`s war on terror for some semblance of legitimacy. As Sharon has said: `Just as the USA...has been acting in its war against terrorism, using all its might against terror, so we will act.`

The reaction to the assassination of Yassin also shows that Israel does not, despite what many claim, dictate the terms to America. The Bush administration`s criticism of the killing of Yassin as `very troubling` may have sounded mild - but considering that this is an election year, when presidents are keen to keep the Jewish lobby in America on board, and that Hamas is close to the top of America`s list of outlaws, it is striking that America expressed concern, rather than congratulations, about Israel`s actions. It has been the USA telling Israel to get the settlers out, and the USA making it very clear that the peace process is its only option for the future.

For its part, Israel couches its military ventures in suitably `internationalist` terms, in a bid to keep an increasingly impatient Washington onside.

The fallout from the Yassin assassination shows that there are two Israels - the one that is building an American-backed Empire, as indulged in the fantasies of many on the left, and the real Israel, which launches attacks from behind high walls against old men in wheelchairs.

___________________________

browse our complete news archive