Ehud Olmert continued his election campaign today by (1) traveling to the West Bank settlement of Ariel and telling its residents they would be included inside the news borders he plans to draw for Israel, and (2) sending the IOF’s tanks and bulldozers in aganst the PA prison in Jericho holding PFLP leader Ahmed Saadat.
I suppose that on the scale of aggressive actions taken by Israeli PMs during election campaigns– oh ain’t Israeli “democracy” wonderful!– this was not as bad as Shimon Peres’s infamous 1996 invasion of South Lebanon.
On this occasion, the British seem clearly to have connived in the Israeli action. Since 2002, the British had been keeping three of their own monitors (and intermittently, supervising monitors from other countries, too) in the Jericho Prison… That was part of an international deal whereby Ahmed Saadat, who was wanted by the Israelis for his role in the killing of Tourism Minister Rahavam Ze’evi but had taken refuge with Arafat in the Muqata during the long siege of spring 2002, was allowed to leave the Muqata. A PA security court gave Saadat and some colleagues a quick trial for the killing of Ze’evi, and sentenced him to a lengthy prison sentence, which was served in Jericho with the British monitors specially deployed there to check on the adequacy of his confinement…
As this well-written piece by the Guardian’s Chris McGreal spells out, the local Israeli commander was just waiting this morning for the British monitors to leave before they stormed the prison compound. How amazing! Do the Brits expect anyone to believe the story that they had not colluded with the Israelis at all in this? After all, Col. Ronnie Belkin, interviewed by McGreal there, would most certainly not have had his assault force sitting there around the pirson for many days just “on the off-chance” that the British monitors might all take it into their heads to leave the site together at some point…
Of course, if the British had stayed there, it is very unlikely that the Israelis would have dared storm the prison by force.
I believe that two Palestinians were killed in the assault. BBC t.v. had some very strong images of IOF bulldozers smashing into the prison building while, presumably, there were still people inside. And of course there are also the images of Saadat and his collagues being led away from the prison by the Israeli soldiers, dazed, after holding out there for some ten hours– and also of a big group of prisoners (or prison guards?) who were forced to strip down to their underpants and stand around in public in them, at the orders of the IOF assault force.
Britain is of course represented in the Quartet through its membership in both the EU and the UN. Given Britain’s defiant dereliction of its contracted duty to the PA under the 2002 agreement, PA President Mahmoud Abbas is quite right to have protested very strongly. But actually, the PA is to a large extent the dependent ward of the international community. So why should any powerful member of the international community, like Britain, feel it needs to listen to Abbas, anyway?
In the absence of their quasi-state authority having any power to protect even its own institutions from the assault of the occupying forces and the perfidy of London, angry Palestinians later smashed up various British installations, and kidnaped a number of westerners in the occupied territories. Not at all a constructive way to make their grievances known, I realise. But in the Palestinians’ present state of almost complete powerlessness, I guess it was what they felt they had left to them.
28 thoughts on “Olmert’s campaign brings down the walls of Jericho”
Comments are closed.
Of course, Helena omits to mention that the raid was precipitated by the fact that Hamas demanded that the murderers of Zeevi be released, and that Abbas had signaled that he would comply with that demand.
And of course, Helena still can’t spell IDF.
Lacking any logic or moral basis for her arguments, she is reduced to distorting facts and childish name calling.
As a positive note, now Salah can post whatever rants he wants about Israel and remain marginally on topic.
Ehud Olmert continued his election campaign
Yes I think this move all to cover the Kadima Party poll dropping down due to this:
Israeli elections
Helena, why really British observers had to move out? And how long the sentense was for the Palestinian terrorist?
The readiness for the raid, which you ascribe to British complicity, was triggered by a message last week from the British monitors (mentioned in the McGreal article) that they would leave the compound unless their concerns were addressed; the IDF forces weren’t waiting on high readiness for the last four years.
As a side note, Saadat (as well as one of the other six) was not, to my knowledge, convicted by the PA, but rather placed in protective custody.
Joshua – IOF = Israeli Occupation Force, which is the correct name for that morally-bankrupt organization.
Of course, as Joshua fails to mention, Abbas qualified that by saying that he was prepared to release Saadat only if the PFLP signed a document taking full responsibility for Saadat’s safety after his release.
Here is a more sober analysis of what happened yesterday:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2086623,00.html
Of course, it is also important to mention that Saadat and the others (including Fouad Shubaiki) were being held under an agreement between the PA, Israel, the UK and the US that was brokered to effect the release for these men from the other muqata’a. Both the UK and US claim that the PA consistently violated the terms of this agreement despite repeated warnings, and that the monitors were in apparent physical danger prior to their evacution, a fact of which the UK warned the PA last week and notified Israel, as a party to the agreement.
Abbas qualified that by saying that he was prepared to release Saadat only if the PFLP signed a document taking full responsibility for Saadat’s safety after his release.
I don’t believe that the issue here is Saadat’s “safety”, rather that he and the others should be brought to justice for the crimes of which they are accused. The fact that Abbas chose to pass off responsibility to the PFLP is irrelevant in this regard, as is the lack of leadership shown by Hamas, who, in turn, tried to pass off responsiblity to Abbas.
Helena — you’re getting paranoid.
This was not a case of connivance, but of failing to live up to an agreement. And why wouldn’t you want those murderers to be in Israeli custody? Or do you approve of the murder of the Israeli tourism minister?
From the NYT:
also
Helena — do you deny that Hamas was planning to release Saadat?
And how, as a pacifist do you fail to criticize the Palestinians for the random taking of foreign guests as hostages in retaliation?
Do you really want these 6 prisoners free to murder again?
Helena, did you think you would fool us with your story of “Conniving”? Why would the British connive with the Israelis to transfer a prisoner?
Congratulations to the IDF for a successful capture without anyone being killed. It is indeed an accomplishment.
From the Guardian article that Helena links:
and
The re-righting of history has already begun!
Congratulations to the IDF for a successful capture without anyone being killed.
So what about the prison guard and the other prisoner that were both killed by the Israeli operation. Oh, they were both Palestinians who we all now are ‘animals’ so they don’t count.
Let’s not forget just what Rehavam Zeevi believed in.
In 1988, Zeevi established Moledet. His movement’s platform consisted mainly in the transfer of Palestinian Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the neighboring Arab countries.
Zeevi made it quite clear that he supported forced transfer. He famously compared Palestinians to “lice” and “cancer”. On different occasions, Zeevi also called for Israel to lay claim to Jordan. It should be noted that Jordan had already signed a formal peace treaty with Israel at the time. More often than not, other Moledet party members had to follow up on these declarations with apologetic explanations that he was misunderstood and in fact Moledet supports only voluntary transfer.
“Helena omits to mention that the raid was precipitated by the fact that Hamas demanded that the murderers of Zeevi be released”
Is this supposed to justify the raid? Incidently, what about all those Israeli war criminals who are responsible for killing many Palestinians. When will they face a trial?
Let’s not forget just what Rehavam Zeevi believed in.
In 1988, Zeevi established Moledet. His movement’s platform consisted mainly in the transfer of Palestinian Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the neighboring Arab countries.
Zeevi made it quite clear that he supported forced transfer. He famously compared Palestinians to “lice” and “cancer”. On different occasions, Zeevi also called for Israel to lay claim to Jordan. It should be noted that Jordan had already signed a formal peace treaty with Israel at the time. More often than not, other Moledet party members had to follow up on these declarations with apologetic explanations that he was misunderstood and in fact Moledet supports only voluntary transfer.
2006-03-15 Who wants PA to collapse? http://inplainview.monitor.us.tt/comm.ME06.htm
Let’s not forget just what Rehavam Zeevi believed in.
Is this supposed to justify his assassination?
blowback
I got that wrong. Two people were killed in the raid, according to reports.
The most striking reflection is the timing. If this would have happened a week ago maybe Helena would be among the foreigners/Britons kidnapped in revenge. I am sure her perpesctive would have been quite interesting from the inside.
The raid was absolutely the right thing to do, and there was plenty of warning in terms what would happen if the agreement was violated. The revolving door for Palestinian terrorists had to stop.
But in the Palestinians’ present state of almost complete powerlessness, I guess it was what they felt they had left to them.
so moral responsibility is commensurate with military power? very interesting. who knew helena was such a neo-con?
I think it is fair to describe Rehavam Zeevi’s assassination as a ‘targeted killing’. He was just as much a threat to the Palestinians as the Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was to Israelis.
He was just as much a threat to the Palestinians as the Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was to Israelis.
so what may i ask is the point of this textbook tu quoque? that both were right? or that both were wrong?
Assume that Zeevi was the equivalent of Yassin. That doesn’t help the killers in this case. If Zeevi was a fair target, then that made the PFLP members combatants (lawful) who are, in turn, a fair target for capture. If Zeevi was not, then the PFLP members were criminals about to be released.
Either way, once Hamas demanded their release, and Abbas indicated his consent, the IDF was within its rights to detain the “Jericho Six” and take action necessary to do so.
Whether this was prudent is another matter. I’m not sure it was.
2006-03-15 Quartet is shown its place http://inplainview.monitor.us.tt/comm.ME06.htm
Vadim, I’d say the point was that both were wrong. As a government official Zeevi was not a civilian. He had the power to make war against Palestinians in a way comparable to Sheikh Yassin ability to make war against Israelis. If that quote is correct his rhetoric was also comparable to Yassin’s. I think Yassin’s assassination was justified as an act of war. But if that is the case then Zeevi’s assassination could be a justifiable act of war as well. It might be that Saadat is a prisoner of war rather than a murderer.
As a government official Zeevi was not a civilian. He had the power to make war against Palestinians in a way comparable to Sheikh Yassin ability to make war against Israelis.
Wasn’t Zeevi the minister of tourism? I don’t think he had any operational military authority (perhaps Yassin also lacked this authority.) I’d guess that each might be considered protected by the 4th geneva convention, depending on how much each took “direct part in hostilities.”
This article by Jonathan Cook discusses the backgroung of Zeevi:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook03152006.html
“Rehavam Zeevi, head of the Central Command in the late 1960s and early 1970s, personally developed and managed Israel’s brutal regime in the newly occupied West Bank. After retiring from the battlefield, he waged a relentless war against “the Arabs” on the political front. His Moledet party, founded in the 1980s, advocated the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Greater Israel–in other words, from Israel and the occupied territories.
His thinking became so acceptable after the outbreak of the intifada that he was appointed tourism minister in Ariel Sharon’s first cabinet. Maybe Sharon thought that, with Zeevi for company, he really might start to look like a man of peace.
Zeevi’s killing by gunmen in a Jerusalem hotel in 2001 was about as close as the Palestinians have managed to get to emulating an Israeli-style targeted assassination–with the difference that, in the Palestinian operation, no bystanders were killed.
Israelis were, and still are, horrified by the killing of Zeevi, with most taking the view that the Palestinians broke all the rules of engagement in targeting an elected politician. That neatly ignores the point that Zeevi’s death was retribution for Israel’s earlier assassination of a widely respected Palestinian politician, Abu Ali Mustafa, the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine…”
As a government official Zeevi was not a civilian.
Not true. The Geneva Conventions draw a sharp distinction between individuals in the direct military chain of command and those who are part of the civil government. The former are legitimate targets; the latter aren’t.
One of the reasons the Yassin assassination was even more controversial than other targeted killings was that he was the head of the political rather than the military wing of Hamas. The Israeli government argued that the distinction between the two wings was a sham and that Yassin was in fact a military leader. To those who didn’t accept this argument, Yassin was the equivalent of a civil official, and was therefore immune even if the Hamas military wing could be considered a combatant group for Geneva purposes (which is another argument altogether).
If you accept that a meaningful distinction existed between the Hamas military and political wings in November 2003, then the Yassin assassination was legally equivalent to the Ze’evi hit. If you don’t – i.e., if you believe that Yassin was equivalent to a general – then it wasn’t. If he was neither fish nor fowl, then the equivalence is uncertain, but most interpretations of the Geneva Conventions tend to resolve gray areas in favor of civilian status.
DavisÙˆ
I think we see this type of post similar if not exactly like the one was posting before his name David!!
Are you David? Did you change your name?
Sorry being of topic, but its pick my attention….
Mike Furir Mike 933
Mike Furir Mike 447