Thursday, 18 February 2010

Milliband must beware hypocrisy over Dubai death

Much of Israel’s own media believes the country’s secret service Mossad carried out the murder of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai last month. Editorials justify the killing by saying it was one life lost to save many. The main concerns appear to be why the operatives allowed themselves to be so comprehensively recorded on CCTV and forged passports that stole the identity of people living in Israel. But for the efficiency of the Dubai authorities the death would have continued to have been treated as from natural causes.
Apart from general opposition to death squads roaming the world, Foreign secretary David Milliband is disturbed that six of the assassins carried false British passports. It is a pity then that the UK has surrendered the moral high ground because any protests smack of hypocrisy.
The official Westminster view is rightly that state-sponsored assassinations cannot be condoned whoever the target. The rule of law should always prevail – not for nothing is the statue of Lady Justice blindfolded. Therefore if there is evidence of Mossad’s involvement, Tel Aviv should be called to account.
However in recent years the UK has found itself – whether fairly or not - implicated in extraordinary rendition and complicity in torture in pursuit of the war on terror. Away from that murky world what is clear is that we invaded Iraq on a false prospectus and waged a war of dubious legality. Tony Blair continues to maintain that the war’s death toll was the price of regime change and the removal of an even greater threat to life in the shape of Saddam Hussein.
The Israelis who consider themselves in a proxy war with Iran via Hamas might ask is there any real difference between the Americans taking out a Taliban leader with a drone in Afghanistan than what happened in Dubai? Or indeed the death of Jean Charles de Menezes shot by British police who believed the innocent Brazilian was carrying a bomb on to a London tube?


  1. Well GC, Jaffa cannot see any connection between your headline and the content of your text beneath it. Perhaps you meant to refer to to the article/claim in today's [friday 19/02/10] Daily Mail,front page, that allegedly MI6 had been tipped off by Israel, before the assassination took place. Perhaps you mean that Britain has allegedly condemned the use of British paasports in the operation but not the assassination itself.

    Or perhaps you mean the astonishment amongst the Israeli militaty, when during the 2006 Lebanon War with Hizbollah the Israeli army allegedly came up against a terrorist organisation using similar night vision equipment to itself, all made in the UK.

    Nevertheless, certainly the victim of the assassination, had much Israeli blood on his hands, but I cannot help feeling that something much bigger was nipped in the bud here perhaps involving the interests of more than one country. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that the victim was going to meet Iranian officials to discuss obtaining certain arms that many countries did not want him to obtain.

    By the way, the victim was also allegedly travelling with a false identity and therefore presumably with a stolen and/or 'doctored' passport.

  2. Dear Jaffa,
    Thank you for comments at length. The post advises David Milliband to beware of being a hypocrite if he feels compelled to join any Israel-bashing as a result of the Dubai hit. GC

  3. Yes. GC. Actually it occurs to Jaffa that all the furore over the false use of passports and so on has died down almost as fast as it has begun. Certainly the media in general must have worked out that in order to create a false identity for one of their agents the secret services of every country in the world are more than likely resorting to exactly the same techniques that we have all just witnessed being so blatently being displayed on the world stage as communicated from Dubai.


What do you think? GC