FALLOUT FROM DUBAI
By now the consensus of informed opinion places responsibility for the recent assassination in Dubai of Hamas operative, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, at the door of Israel’s notorious secret service agency, Mossad. As such, it comes as little surprise that it has been met with satisfaction by many within Israel and supporters of Israel around the world. Mossad’s legacy of carrying out audacious operations to dispose of Israel’s enemies has just been reaffirmed, and given its history it’s a certainty that it won’t be the last such operation either.
But the message sent by this operation is not the one which those who approve of its undertaking, in their mood of triumphalism, believe has been – namely that Israel will never tire in its determination to find and punish its enemies however long it takes and wherever they may be. On the contrary, the message that has just been sent around the world is confirmation of the now widely held view of Israel as a state for whom international law is not worth the paper on which it is written. Indeed, for decades now, Israel has continually violated international law without compunction on the hitherto unwritten acknowledgement that it enjoys a moral license to do so from its allies in the West. The granting of this moral license, for both historical and strategic reasons, has not, however, aided Israel’s security in the slightest. If anything it has lessened it by ensuring a state of perpetual war and the deepening enmity of the Arab masses towards not only Israel itself, but also towards the West and those Arab governments, such as Egypt and Jordan, which actively collaborate with its ongoing repression of the Palestinians. Ultimately, it is a cycle of violence and hatred which risks the one thing that exercises more than any other the minds of Western leaders – the stability of the Middle East.
Not only for the West but for Israel itself, this operation, though it might titillate some with with its James Bond-like derring-do, has backfired. The diplomatic fall out has only just begun, with British prime minister Gordon Brown, long a supporter of Israel, forced to come out and make a statement that a full investigation will be undertaken into the use of British passports by the killers. The British Israeli ambassador has also been called in to provide an explanation, though no one will be holding their breath in the expectation that anything other than a polite diplomatic exchange over a cup of tea will ensue. The key point, however, is Israel’s willingness to embarrass a key ally like Britain to kill one man.
More significantly has been its willingness to endanger the lives of its own citizens whose passport details were used to carry out the attack, a decision which surely contradicts the usual justification behind such operations as having been undertaken to protect Israeli citizens.
With each passing day more information becomes available in relation to the operation and how it was carried out. This includes the near certainty that it involved the cooperation of a high level Palestinian infomant or informants in passing on the intelligence required for its success. The question which must be asked though is the one asked by the estimable Robert Fisk of the Independent on the possibility of the collusion of other intelligence services, including the British. For what we know of our own intelligence community as a result of the dirty war it waged against the IRA at the height of the Troubles, it isn’t made up of the kind of people for whom a passport and the sovereignty it represents would ever get in the way of a covert operation if deemed in the national interest, as determined by unelected and unaccountable intelligence operatives. We already know that British intelligence officers have been complicit in torture. We also know of British collusion with so-called rendition flights, involving the covert transportation of terrorist suspects by the CIA to secret locations around the world for interrogation and torture. Is it really then beyond the realms of possibility that British intelligence may have close ties with Mossad which cross the boundaries of not only international but also British law?
To ask the question is to answer it.
In all probability, as we’ve seen with similar incidents, those involved will expect to weather the media and diplomatic noise generated, in the expectation that after a week or so it will disappear from the front pages and be forgotten. But in the context of a growing international boycott and divestment campaign against Israel, one which gained enormous traction in the aftermath of last year’s assault on Gaza by the IDF, this event merely adds impetus to calls for Israel to be held to account for war crimes and its repeated violations of international law.
Only when Israel begins to view the Palestinians as human beings, with the same rights to freedom, self determination and justice which they ascribe to themselves, will anything like a resolution to this ongoing and seemingly intractable conflict be possible. Two generations of Palestinians have known only occupation and dispossession in their existence now. Yet the suffering they’ve endured has only made them more resilient and determined to continue to resist. And with each year of that resistance, as the depredations of occupation, siege, and military assault continue, so does international solidarity with their struggle.
As for Israel, like apartheid South Africa before it, the day approaches when its policy of aggression and confrontation will have to give way to one of meaningful negotiation with the elected leaders of the Palestinians, whoever they may be. That the oppressed often become oppressors is a truism of past conflicts and examples of genocide and ethnic cleansing which have stained human history for centuries now. But peoples also have the capacity to escape their history when courage replaces fear and brings with it the recognition that only the strong can compromise and only equals can reach agreement.
For the sake not only of the Palestinians, but also of Israelis forced to live as prisoners of fear and hatred of their neighbours, we can only hope that that day comes sooner rather than later.
“Palestinian defectors”? Why would Israel need “defectors” when it has its own Palestinian agents i.e. Fatah and the Dahlan gangs?
Comment by Tim Vanhoof — 18 February, 2010 @ 9:48 pm
Doubt it was Mossad, too amateurish, more likely some other Arab loon mob happy to try and pin it on Israel.
Might have helped if the British government hadn’t sprayed passports around like confetti to anyone who wanted one too.
Comment by QM — 18 February, 2010 @ 11:37 pm
An interesting and thoughtful piece. Thanks.
Comment by Calvin — 18 February, 2010 @ 11:37 pm
Though I am not necessarily in agreement with all of the content, I would like to congratulate the author on writing in a sensible and balanced manner without recourse to using inflammatory pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric and referencing ‘Zionists’.
The author has one thing wrong though. There have been serious questions raised in Israel and the Israeli media about this operation. For some chest-beating, the media has also been critical, even livid, about the operation and the manner in which it was executed and the fall-out the current government can expect.
Comment by Mick — 19 February, 2010 @ 12:05 am
I think combrs should read this as well.”Dubai police call on Interpol to help arrest Mossad head”
Comment by Anonymous — 19 February, 2010 @ 6:48 am
Isint capital the one who should be in the dock.Marks and Engels, had a big fall out over violence and as socialists, we should have no truck with it.Shame on the English government giving respect to these asassins, the Israel death squads.
Comment by howard — 19 February, 2010 @ 7:15 am
Bill is right of course, the Israeli approach has worked a treat. Which is why Israeli citizens live safe from terror, and Israeli government spokespersons constantly appear on the media to assure us that Israel is not subject to any terrorist threat of any kind. We, in contrast, cower under the constant threat of attacks from the Provisional IRA.
Incidentally, had the British mandate adopted the robust approach Bill advocates towards Zionist terrorism, Israel would have been pretty short of political leaders for the first few decades of its existence.
Comment by lone nut — 19 February, 2010 @ 8:47 am
#9
What a ridiculous thing to say. 60 years of perpetual war and resistance is clear evidence that the Israeli approach up to now has been a disaster both for Israel and the region as a whole.
Comment by John — 19 February, 2010 @ 9:23 am
#10
JOhn
None nut was being sarcastic
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 February, 2010 @ 9:27 am
Oops, so he was. Silly me.
Sorry lonenut. It’s still early.
Comment by John — 19 February, 2010 @ 9:34 am
I don’t think the whole truth will come out. I expect the art of misinformation to be in full swing. Milliband’s meeting with the Israeli ambassador will be a exercise in getting their stories straight. The Israeli propaganda machine will deflect the blame onto mysterious others, I expect Harry’s place will be running stories blaming Iran or something. Cuddly, media friendly Israeli spokespeople will reassure us Israeli does all it can to uphold civilised values.
And finally people like Mick (comment no. 4) will tell us how Israeli’s are internally debating this, because hey they are so decent aren’t they. Maybe Mick will be able to predict for us when this ‘debate’ will see some fucking results!
Comment by SteveH — 19 February, 2010 @ 9:49 am
`Though I am not necessarily in agreement with all of the content, I would like to congratulate the author on writing in a sensible and balanced manner without recourse to using inflammatory pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric and referencing ‘Zionists’.’
Comments like this indicate that the writer hasn’t taken a principled position. There can be no negotiating with the Zionists, they must be isolated, disarmed and removed from power. The only people the Palestinians should negotiate with are those sections of the jewish population who are happy to live peacefully and legally in a secular, democratic, unified Palestine in which the thieving West Bank settlers are removed from their illegal settlements and to which the refugees are allowed to return to new jobs and homes or are properly compensated if they do not. For an all Palestine (Israel, West Bank, Gaza, Refugees) Constituent Assembly and the dispropriation of the dispropriators.
Comment by David Ellis — 19 February, 2010 @ 11:48 am
Corr obviously missed the whole Special Branch/Loyalist death squad collusion business and the little matter of the shoot-to-kill policy that was used by the army/security services - especially during the 80s & 90s.
Comment by Seán — 19 February, 2010 @ 3:40 pm
David Ellis. Your comments have nothing to do with principle (an objective concept) but prejudice. Your scenario of a democratic and secular unified Palestine is pure fantasy and would unbdoubtedly lead to mass civil war such as has periodically befallen Lebanon - a political construct run by armed militias. There is no evidence at all that a democratic or secular Palestine is achievable - there is not even a basis for it within current Palestinian society. Just like a unified Yugoslavia ultimately was.
Comment by Mick — 19 February, 2010 @ 3:43 pm
#16 You say my comments are based on prejudice but then you don’t say what my prejudice is. You merely blab on about why your prejudices tell you nothing can be done.
Comment by David Ellis — 19 February, 2010 @ 4:00 pm
So Mick, are you an advocate of wiping Israel off the map then? Seems like you think this is the only solution.
Comment by Marko — 19 February, 2010 @ 4:47 pm
#2
So typical of the lazy, put-it-out-there-and-see-if-it-sticks rhetoric that characterises pro-Zionists. In this post-9/11 world any old BS concerning Arabs and Muslims is possible.
#16
The reason that there is “no evidence at all that a democratic or secular Palestine is achievable” is because Israel engineered it to be this way. I suspect you wish things to stay exactly as they are or for the Palestinians to just go away.
Comment by Omar — 19 February, 2010 @ 6:35 pm
#18
“So Mick, are you an advocate of wiping Israel off the map then?”
Who said anything about wiping anything off any map? Scotland and England opted for a one-state solution in 1707 and Scotland did not disappear from any maps.
Comment by Sympathetic Ink — 20 February, 2010 @ 3:06 pm
#20 Let Mick answer for himself, he seems to be ruling out the one state solution. But the question I posed offers him the chance to state his own idea.
I wait in anticipation.
Comment by Marko — 20 February, 2010 @ 5:42 pm