INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS - LOOKING GLASS NEWS | |
The Jericho prison raid |
|
by Ramzy Baroud Online Journal Entered into the database on Friday, March 24th, 2006 @ 17:34:43 MST |
|
Could it be possible that the Israeli army raid on a Jericho prison
on March 14 was done without careful coordination between Israel, the United
States and Britain? Could it also be possible that the timing of the onslaught
was equally innocent, of no political consequence, and not linked in any way
to the Palestinians' ability to withstand Israeli blackmail, US threats and
European intimidation following the Hamas election victory in January 2006? Arab League Secretary General Amr Musa -- a man known for being particularly
cautious with his choice of words -- told Al Jazeera on the day of the attack:
"Clearly, there (was) some sort of coordination". Many others concur.
But before examining the Israeli raid itself, one should quickly scrutinize
its surrounding political milieu, for without such comprehension, the Israeli
attack which resulted in the death of a prison guard, a prisoner and the abduction
of several leading political prisoners would seem just like any other day of
violence in the fractious occupied territories. The Palestinian parliamentary elections last January, which introduced Hamas
as a power player, have yielded a most unfavorable formula from the point of
view of the US and Britain. Both governments have invested in a carefully designed
and self-serving democracy program that would cement and justify their costly
meddling in the region and, of course, their lost war in Iraq. Whether they
wish to admit it or not, the advent of Hamas, which has provided a moral boost
to Islamic political movements everywhere, has most likely signaled the end
of the US-led quasi-democracy project. Israel, on the other hand, has arguably benefited from the Hamas victory since,
surely, no one would expect Israel to negotiate with a political force that
calls for the Jewish state's demise; now Israel can further twist its masterful
rhetoric of having a moral right and obligation to secure itself from theoretical
annihilation at the hands of Hamas through more unilateral action, or so the
incongruous logic goes. Indeed, acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert could hardly conceal his
enthusiasm and has embarked on all kinds of unilateral plans, by walling off
Palestinians completely and, further, by drawing his country's own version of
permanent borders -- of course at the expense of Palestinian land and amid near
complete American and European silence. Europe, even after it agreed to pass some funds on to the Palestinian Authority,
is yet to grow weary of warning Palestinians of dire consequences if certain
conditions are not met (conditions that are, of course, applicable to Palestinians
only). The United States government unabashedly demanded the return of some meager
funds it delivered to the Palestinian Authority prior to the vote. Palestinians
complied. The Congress, on the other hand, has forged and is quickly processing
various laws to further punish and alienate Palestinians for making their democratic
choice. Even Israel's initial sense of vindication has turned sour, as Hamas -- despite
its lack of experience in international politics -- has managed to win the trust
of various governments outside of the Western hemisphere, and is proving equally
savvy in making its conditions for a final settlement with Israel appear plausible. In other words, despite the intense blackmail and arm-twisting to cripple one
of a few truly democratic Middle East experiences, Palestinians have successfully
managed to impress their political will as an irrevocable part of the region's
political reality; a very disturbing realization indeed in the eyes of the US
and Israel who have diligently worked for decades to undermine the Palestinian
people's aspirations. But even more dangerous is the fact that Palestinians were quietly reworking
their political and ideological divergence in intense meetings in Gaza, with
the hope that a national unity government would replace the less favored option
of a Hamas-only government. Of course it's not the workings of Palestinian politics that Israel and the
US administration (and less significantly Britain) found troubling. What's troublesome
is the fact that a national unity government that includes the defeated pro-US
Fatah movement would deny the Bush administration and Israel the chance to scrutinize,
undermine and eventually topple a lone Hamas government. Thus, the US response to the unity talks in Gaza between Hamas and Fatah representatives
was uncompromisingly clear. "Diplomatic sources said strict US restrictions
on contacts and assistance to Hamas would apply to Fatah and other parties if
they joined a government under the militant group," Reuters reported on
March 13, a day before the Israeli raid on the Jericho prison. One should try
to approach the analysis of the Israeli raid on the West Bank prison' against
this backdrop. The prison has been under the watchful eye of American and European monitors
for over four years. Their mission was to satisfy Israel's demand to keep Ahmed
Saadat, the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP),
locked in, without trial, due process or conviction. Saadat is arbitrarily connected
by Israel to the killing of an Israeli minister, Rehavam Zeevi, five years ago.
His imprisonment by the Palestinian Authority, under foreign monitoring, was
for long a source of embarrassment for the PA and its formerly leading Fatah
Party. Abruptly, on March 14, Americans and British monitors reportedly abandoned
their posts, a move that was followed minutes later by a well-calculated and
well-executed Israeli attack that resulted in a bloody episode and the abduction
of Saadat and a few other political prisoners. A military penetration of such
a magnitude would've surely consumed days, if not weeks in the making. For the
US administration and the British government to claim that they didn't coordinate
their decision to withdraw their monitors with Israel is utter nonsense. What followed was most predictable: violence, chaos, threats of vengeance
and the kidnapping of a few foreigners, a most suitable conclusion to an event
that was meant to spur just that: to shatter the relative peace, to harden Hamas'
mission in forming a government, to provoke Palestinians into breaking their
one-sided ceasefire, thus their rank. But ultimately, with its brutal show of
force, Israel meant to remind the Palestinian leadership, democratically elected
or not, that those with the bigger guns will always have the final say. Ramzy Baroud is the author of "The Second Palestinian
Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and
also editor-in-chief of PalestineChronicle.com. He can be contacted at:
editor@palestinechronicle.com.
|