The one thing that really sets Muslims apart from their cousins in Abraham is how very keen they are on their martyrs.

With one obvious exception, for Christians martyrdom was never that big a deal. For those few people on whom the title was conferred, it always seemed to have something to do with a selfless act of defiance in the face of oppression, rather than simply getting killed, in whatever circumstances. Even then, they pretty much gave up on the idea round about the time of Joan of Arc. It might have something to do with the fact that compared with the Big One, the rest didn't carry quite so much weight.

But Muslims? They're not quite so discriminating. To them, martyrdom is still a very important part of Islam, so every member of the faith seems to be eligible.

Eight-year-old Palestinian boys shot by Israeli soldiers are martyrs, Arabic journalists shot by American soldiers are martyrs, even men and women who blow themselves up along with innocent civilians - they're martyrs too.

One might question whether they'd all really earned the title or, more importantly, the air of heroism that accompanies it, but hey, the one undeniable thing is that for Muslims, this martyrdom thing is serious.

You'd think that anyone seriously trying to resolve a disagreement with an Islamic people would try avoiding the whole issue of death in the name of faith.

So why, I ask myself, is the Israeli government quite so keen on adding to the number of martyrs with one of the biggest heavyweights in many years? What did they think they'd gain by assassinating Sheikh Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas? Just what bit of the Islamic psyche didn't Ariel Sharon understand?

Yes, Yassin may have played an integral role in plotting the downfall of the Israeli state by masterminding an indefensible campaign of terror against ordinary Jews, but killing him was a great mistake. Although he would have continued to cause Israel damage had he stayed alive, he will create much more destruction now he's dead.

Yassin knew he was ageing, crippled, weak and didn't have too much longer left in this world. The suicide bombings would have continued while people searched for a lasting peace, but ultimately Yassin would have died of old age and his followers would have dissipated or turned on each other in a struggle to succeed him. But in killing the Sheikh, Sharon gave him just what he wanted: to die a martyr for Islam and let his name and cause live on for ever.

Where before there was just Yassin preaching hatred, now many more will repeat it in his name. He'll be deified. Countless numbers of passionate, hot-headed, young Palestinians will seek to avenge his death. And that will only bring far more pain on the state of Israel, and the majority of ordinary Palestinians in return.

This may all sound quite anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian, or anti-Muslim. I assure you, that's not what's driving it at all. It's frustration with the minorities on both sides who are holding back the majorities in their respective communities.

I deplore Israel's often violent suppression of the people whose country they were given by the west (2,000 years of suffering persecution does not give you the right to dish it out yourself once you're The Man), I abhor the fact that they went beyond their agreed borders to occupy Palestinian land, I resent the fact that I'm not allowed to use the word Palestine at work, and that I have to remind myself that a great many Israelis want to be rid of the conflict and live in symbiotic peace with their Arabic neighbours.

Yet with people like Ariel Sharon and (you've guessed it) Dubya in power, the situation is never going to improve.

On the one hand, Sharon is a bully. He thought he was being strong, sending a message to the militants, by killing Yassin. But in reality, fearful for his own position, he was giving in to the bigoted hardliners around him and resorted to the only thing he truly understands: warfare. The truly strong, brave man would have held out against the hawks and continued to seek a peaceful solution. Sharon is not, and never was, that man.

As for George, although he's not the only president in US history to have not only leaned towards but leaped into the pro-Israel camp, he's using the T word to validate Israel's action, and to justify not doing anything about the worsening situation, save occasionally mumbling about the roadmap to peace.

Things wouldn't look so bleak if the map was even in the car. But it's not. George never wanted to go down that road in the first place. Commercially speaking, a peaceful Holy Land offers no more than a warring one (indeed, a cynic might say the fighting floods the coffers) and in terms of political capital, it's much more beneficial to keep the Israeli hardline apologists in Washington sweet.

Given the chance the roadmap could lead to peace. Instead it's lining Barney's basket.