Note: The translations of articles from the Hebrew press are prepared by the Government Press Office as a service to foreign journalists in Israel. They express the views of the authors.
IT WAS APPARENTLY NOT "JEWISH LABOR"
(Commentary by Ron Ben-Yishai, "Yediot", Apr 2, 1998, pp. A1, 19)
Muhi a-Din Sharif was a brutal terrorist and it is doubtful that anyone in the State of Israel regrets his death.
It is also not difficult to understand why Hamas and certain Palestinian Authority figures have hastened to cast the blame for his demise on Israel. However, indications at the scene quite clearly testify to the fact that this was not the fruit of "Jewish labor" but the consequence of a "work-related accident." As such, explanations for the incident will have to be sought among the Palestinians.
The primary piece of evidence supporting the view that this was not a "pin-pointed assassination" is the fact that the explosion did not occur inside the stolen Israeli vehicle (as originally reported), but inside the building which apparently served as a Hamas bomb factory. The investigation of the wrecked vehicle conducted by Israel Police forensic experts unequivocally determined that the explosion took place outside the vehicle, and that home- made, non-standard "triacetone" explosives were responsible.
Hamas has employed this type of explosive in almost all the attacks perpetrated by Muhi a-Din Sharif's people over recent years and 680 kg. of the substance were found in the recently discovered Nablus laboratory. Moreover, although extremely volatile, it can be easily prepared from materials available in almost every pharmacy. At the same time, any friction or tremor during its production process (or during the manufacture of a bomb) can cause detonation. In the past, Hamas and other Palestinian groups have sustained numerous "work accidents" involving triacetone.
The Israel Police investigators who visited the site of the explosion also noted that a large quantity of this substance exploded within the building which apparently housed the vehicle intended for use in a car bomb attack, as well as Muhi a-Din Sharif who was "working" there at the time. The structure was partially destroyed and it appears that, as a result of the large explosion, both the vehicle and Sharif's body were ejected from the building.
The holes which the Palestinian pathologist found in Sharif's chest and leg could have been caused by bolts, nails, ball bearings and even bullets
which Hamas customarily adds to its explosives or by the simple metal scraps abundantly present in all garages and workshops; the explosion would have hurled these projectiles in all directions.
The possibility still exists that someone initiated the laboratory explosion, knowing that Muhi a-Din Sharif was inside. But an analysis of Israel's response to the explosion and its comparison to Israeli responses to similar incidents would indicate that Israel had no hand in this event. The determined and explicit denials issued by both the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister should be taken seriously since, in the past, Israel has sufficed with either "no comment" or some implied admission of responsibility. A prime example of this was the mobile phone assassination of "Engineer #1," Yihye Ayash.
It should also be recalled that Israeli leaders are conscious of the fact that, in a small country with an active and inquisitive media, such actions cannot remain concealed. Everything is ultimately leaked to the local or international media.
Further, one cannot rule completely out the possibility that one of the Palestinian security services is behind the blast, as part of an effort to show Dennis Ross that the Palestinian Authority is fulfilling its commitment to combat terrorism. However, this scenario also seems unlikely since, if exposed, it would be paramount to a declaration of war on Hamas, and thus dangerous for Arafat and his allies. If Arafat's people had been in possession of information on the laboratory's location, they would have preferred to "score points" by sharing their knowledge; afterwards, they could have quietly killed Muhi a-Din Sharif and secretly buried him.
There exists another possibility: A rival Palestinian security organization could have caused the explosion as a provocation, in order to prompt Hamas into taking revenge against Israel. This would not leave Arafat in the clear, however, because Israel and the Americans could still assert that he is not taking decisive action against terrorism. This indirect "settling of accounts" is not uncommon among the crime and terror syndicates around the world. In the Palestinian context, for example, it is known that Jibril Rajoub's relations with both Israel and Arafat have been tense of late; theoretically, at least, he could have carried out this kind of operation to take revenge against both Israel and rival security services (such as the one headed by Colonel Tirawi).
But from Hamas' perspective, even if this was an "accident," the arch-terrorist's death will give Hamas militants the justification to carry out their already planned attacks against Israel. This rationale is crucial for Hamas in the event that Israel, in response to a wave of attacks, again imposes a closure on the territories and causes the Palestinian population to suffer.