I was shocked when the first reports of the Israeli assault on Jericho prison came in suggesting British-Israeli collusion. A few days later it is clear it was no such thing — just another ghastly international mess in the area.
Back in 2002, when British diplomats helped end the grim siege of President Yasser Arafat’s compound in Ramallah, by arranging for six terrorist suspects to be given secure passage to Jericho, I was delighted with the initiative. The prisoners would be moved to Jericho prison, built by the British in the days of the Palestinian mandate — a curious twist of history — and monitored by a team provided by Britain and America. The prisoners would be looked after by Palestinian wardens, and the international monitors would make sure the Ramallah agreement was adhered to by all the parties.
On March 14, Jack Straw, Britain’s foreign secretary, told the House of Commons that he had considered pulling out the three British monitors a year ago, because of security concerns, and their position had now become “untenable”. There had been no collusion with the Israeli authorities.
The Foreign Office released a letter from John Jenkins, Britain’s consul general in Jerusalem and his American opposite number, to President Mahmoud Abbas on March 8 warning that the monitors would be withdrawn unless their safety was protected. The Palestinian President was quoted on March 15 as saying that the British and Americans had “told us that they would be withdrawn a week ago.”
The monitors were in danger and their role had become absurd. The 200 inmates were running the prison and the monitors were unable to enter it. They looked at what was going on from the roof! Senior prisoners were allowed mobile phones and conjugal visits. There was a real fear a monitor might be killed or kidnapped. The Israelis had correctly been told of the decision to withdraw the monitors as they were a party to the Ramallah agreement.
The position of Ehud Olmert, the acting Israeli prime minister, is easy to comprehend and he took a leaf out of Ariel Sharon’s book. Disproportionate use of force — a tank firing into a civilian prison — and unnecessary deaths being caused are part of the Israeli military tradition. Olmert has gained ground in his election campaign for the new Kadima party. Both the Israeli government and the British government would have been alarmed by remarks made by both Hamas and Abbas supporting the release of the Palestinian prisoners in Jericho prison.
If the British and American monitors looked to be in a hopeless and dangerous position, that of Abbas does not look much better. Hamas won its unexpected election victory over two months ago and has still to decide who should be in the new Palestinian Authority. This is looking irresponsible, and its members have scant respect for the opinions of Abbas. What action did he take when he was told the international monitors would be removed if their security could not be safeguarded? He has few political cards to play, has only limited support in the Palestinian areas, and I would not be surprised if he resigns before long.
Ahmed Saadat, 52, the main reason for the Israeli assault, is the alleged mastermind behind the assassination of Gen. Rehavam Zeevi, Israel’s tourism minister, on Oct. 17, 2001. He was shot at close range in a luxury East Jerusalem hotel — the first Arab killing of an Israeli Cabinet minister in the troubled history of the State of Israel. The general held political opinions that from time to time made even Ariel Sharon look a moderate.
Abbas would like Ahmed Saadat and his colleagues to be placed in another Palestinian prison, but Israel is never going to accept that with Hamas about to take over. I think they should be held in another prison, not in Israel but in a neighboring country, under international supervision — and that is not going to happen either. At least, the United States and the United Kingdom should insist that they must not be tortured and should have a fair and open trial.
We can all see the assault on the prison flowed from the approaching Israeli elections and the deadlock that has followed the election victory of Hamas. It, and the subsequent burning of the British Council offices in Gaza and Ramallah, has left the policy of the British government for the area in serious disarray. In 2005 Britain spent 60 million pounds in support of the Palestinian Authority and gave it much ministerial time and attention.
The big unresolved question for the international community is what to do about the Palestinian Authority when it is being run by Hamas. It does not want to endorse Hamas; it does not want the Authority to collapse either.
