Democratic Palestine : 20 (ص 22)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 20 (ص 22)
- المحتوى
-
History repeats itself. This time, though, Britain’s share is a comedy.
Thatcher Joins the US-Israeli War on Syria
On November 2, 1917, ‘Her
Majesty’s’ Foreign Secretary Balfour
issued his famous declaration which
granted Palestine to the Zionists. On
October 29, 1956, Britain joined France
and ‘Israel’ in waging war on Egypt, in
a clear challenge to President Nasser’s
decision to nationalize the Suez Canal.
In both historical incidents, Britain was
the powerful empire, «on which the sun
never set.» The Balfour Declaration
was issued when imperialist Britain was
at its peak. It gave the Zionists the
break they needed in legalizing their
occupation of Palestine. However,
after the defeat of the 1956 tripartite
attack on Egypt, the British empire saw
its last days. Britain had been relegated
to playing second fiddle to US imperia-
lism.
Now, thirty years after the Suez war
and 69 years after the Balfour Declara-
tion, Thatcher imagines that the sin
might shine on Britain again, and that
‘happy days’ might be ‘here again’. The
latest example of this wishful thinking
was seen in the breaking of ties with
Syria, on the pretext of fighting ‘inter-
national terrorism’. However, the final
act of the play is not yet over.
The ‘play’ started in April when the
British police arrested Nezar Hindawi
on charges of trying to destroy an El Al
airliner at Heathrow airport on April
17th, by smuggling explosives aboard
in the bag of his Irish fiancee, Anne-
Marie Murphy. This ‘plot’ was foiled
by an El Al security agent who found
plastic explosives hidden in the false
bottom of Murphy’s hand luggage. It is
worth noting that it was an Israeli
guard, not British guards or detectors,
that foiled the ‘plot’. Quite a security
scandal!
Until October 6th, the day Hindawi’s
trial started, there were no indications
of an ‘Arab connection’ - official or
otherwise. Even more indicative, Mar-
garet Thatcher had declared, after the
British police had completed their
investigations, that these showed no
Syrian connection with the ‘plot’ or
with Hindawi.
However, the second scene of the
play unfolded after the Old Bailey court
in London convicted Hindawi of viola-
ting the 1982 Aviation Security Act,
covering airline sabotage, and sen-
tenced him to 45 years in prison, one of
the longest sentences handed down by a
British judge in recent years. Just four
hours later, British Foreign Secretary
Geoffrey Howe announced the diplo-
matic break with Syria. Howe claimed
that the British decision was based on
«conclusive evidence of official Syrian
involvement» in the attempt to sabo-
tage the airliner. Anne-Marie had ear-
lier been found innocent.
During the trial, Hindawi testified
22
that he was planning to smuggle drugs
in the bag carried by Murphy, not
explosives. According to Hindawi,
these drugs were to be smuggled to the
West Bank in order to make a fortune.
He said that he had met a person in
Damascus and agreed with him to
smuggle drugs to the West Bank for
$250,000. During the trial, Hindawi
expressed his belief that Israeli agents
had switched the bag which his fiancee
was carrying, with one containing
explosives, or that the person he had
met in Damascus was an Israeli agent.
Hindawi testified that after the arrest of
Anne-Marie Murphy, he had headed
for the Syrian embassy to get help.
Hindawi said he met with the ambas-
sador, but the latter had kicked him
out.
In an interview with Time magazine
in early October, President Hafez
Assad assured that the Syrian govern-
ment had no connection with Hindawi,
and that «no terrorist acts are carried
out from Syria, by Syrians or others.»
He said that Hindawi, a Jordanian, had
obtained a Syrian passport at a time
when relations between Syria and
Jordan were tense. He added that
Hindawi had gone to the Syrian
embassy in London after the incident,
but that the embassy officials had
refused to give him any help, and
kicked him out.
After Hindawi’s conviction and the
ensuing accusations of a ‘Syrian con-
nection’, the British government broke
diplomatic ties with Syria. Syria res-
ponded immediately by closing Syrian
airspace, ports and territorial waters to
British planes and ships. The nineteen
British diplomats in Damascus were
given one week to leave the country.
The Syrian government issued a state-
ment denying the false charges and
indicating that «the present British
government, since it took power, has
made its campaigns against Arab states
and third world countries.»
LOOPHOLES IN
THATCHER’S CASE
It is logical to wonder why the British
guards did not find the explosives, for
the bag went through sophisticated
electronic detectors. It is also logical to
wonder why the Syrian embassy did not
help Hindawi to escape, if syria had
been involred. Even more revealing is
the Washington Times report on an
interview with French Foreign Minister
‘Chirac. In an interview with the editor-
in-chief of the Washington Times,
Chirac had said that the West German
government, namely Chancellor
Helmut Kohl and Foreign Minister
Hans-Dietrich Genscher, had informed
the French government that the Israeli
secret service (Mossad), with Syrian
dissidents, had planned the attack on
the El Al airliner in order to indict Syria
for terrorism. Chirac added that the
Mossad had ordered Hindawi to head
for the Syria embassy after delivering
the explosives to his Irish girl friend.
After Paris and Bonn denied the con-
tents of the interview as reported, the
Washington Times _ editor-in-chief,
insisting that the interview was accurate
and genuine, published the whole text
two days later (November 10th).
Logic dictates that Britain’s breaking
relations with Syria had nothing to do
with Hindawi’s case, but was actually a
continuation of the anti-Syrian cam-
paign initiated by ‘Israel’ and the US
long before the Heathrow airport inci-
dent occurred. Hindawi’s conviction
paved the way for «America and Israel
to celebrate the first terrorist case which
could directly be linked to President
Hafez Assad» (Sunday Times, October
27th).
The US escalated its political cam-
paign in the Middle East long before
the Hindawi case, aiming to continue
the imperialist ‘peace’ process. This
was especially apparent after Peres’
visit to Morocco, and George Bush’s
trip to the region, where he talked with
Zionist leaders, Hussein of Jordan and
Mubarak of Egypt. Then there was the
first Egyptian-Israeli summit since
Sadat’s death in 1981, and lastly, US
envoy Richard Murphy’s visit to
Damascus where he met the Syrian
president. All these activities aim spe-
cifically at reaching a Camp David-type
agreement which would eventually end
the Middle East conflict at the expense
of the Palestinian people and their legi-
timate rights.
However, Murphy’s discussions with
the Syrian president showed that the
road to spreading Camp David is still
paved with many obstacles. Hafez
Assad informed Murphy that the only
framework acceptable to Syria, for
discussing the conflict, is an interna-
tional conference attended by all parties
concerned, including the PLO, and by
the permanent members of the UN
Security Council.
Obviously, Syria presents a major
obstacle to a new Camp David. It is
equally obvious that imperialism, Zio-
nism and reactionary forces would pool
their efforts to remove this obstacle,
along with the others, specifically the
Palestinian revolution and the Leba-
nese national movement. To this end,
the enemy alliance is increasing pres-
sure on the Arab national movement
and regimes, escalating threats and - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 20
- تاريخ
- نوفمبر ١٩٨٦
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed