Friday, January 29, 2010 - 4:06 PM

Hamas is claiming that one of its leaders, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, was killed by Israeli operatives in his hotel in Dubai on January 20 and threatening a response "in the appropriate place and time." The story is all over the Arab media, in many cases as a red-bannered breaking news story. Israel does not yet have a comment that I've seen. Hamas says that UAE authorities are cooperating in the investigation, and the first reports out of Dubai are that the killers were European and part of a "professional criminal gang". Whatever the truth of the incident, the alleged assassination threatens to disrupt the uneasy ceasefire which has held between Hamas and Israel over the last year, and to further strain the already dismal prospects of either Fatah-Hamas reconciliation, attempts to alleviate the suffering of Gaza, or a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Let's hope that it doesn't spark a new cycle of violence.
The de facto cease-fire between Hamas and Israel has been no secret. Israelis have often pointed to these efforts by Hamas to prevent attacks against Israel over the last year as evidence that Operation Cast Lead succeeded in establishing deterrence. As Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently said, for instance, "The deterrence achieved during Operation Cast Lead still exists, and it is strong." Palestinian Authority (Ramallah) Prime Minister Salam al-Fayyad similarly raised some eyebrows at Davos yesterday by highlighting that in practice Hamas and the PA agreed on security: "it is clear that Hamas has been trying to prevent attacks on Israel, it is no secret, it has been trying to do that, it is not saying it is doing it but it is doing it.” This argument has been used against Hamas by its Arab rivals such as Egypt and the PA, who have pointed to the de facto ceasefire to mock their claims to be "resisting" Israel. Israelis, including Barak, have argued repeatedly that what rocket fire there has been from Gaza has been due to the difficulties Hamas has faced in controlling more radical groups --- not from Hamas itself.
Why would Israel put this de facto ceasefire at risk by an assassination? First off, it's impossible to say at this point whether they did --- no evidence has yet been presented to back up Hamas's claims. Much of the Arab public immediately believed it, though, as it immediately recalled the botched operation against Khaled Meshaal in Amman a decade ago, as well as the assassinations of leading Hamas figures such as Ahmed Yassin and Abd al-Aziz al-Rentissi in 2004. That doesn't mean that it's true. But since Hamas has already gone public with the accusation and promised revenge, it may spark off a dangerous cycle anyway.
What if it's true? There should be questions about the legitimacy and morality of assassinating one's enemies abroad, one would think. But that seems unlikely in this day and age, when the United States openly brags of its Predator strikes, discusses them primarily in terms of whether or not they "work" as opposed to whether or not they are legal or morally acceptable, and muses about whether or not to target Anwar al-Awlaki (the radical Islamist in Yemen who is also an American citizen). The international norms against such assassinations have been thoroughly degraded by the Global War on Terror, and the Obama administration has escalated rather than reined in such measures.
So the real debate is more likely to be about the logic of the assassination and whether it "works." But it's not obvious what that would even mean in this context -- it makes little strategic sense. If Israelis and the PA both acknowledge that Hamas has been controlling attacks against Israel from Gaza, what is gained by a provocation such as this? Would it have "worked" if Hamas fails to respond, demonstrating its impotence? Would it have "worked" if Hamas does respond, killing innocent Israeli civilians and possibly triggering another round of horrific violence? Would it have "worked" if a Hamas retaliation (or even an unfulfilled threat of retaliation) offers a pretext for maintaining or intensifying the blockade of Gaza? At this point I'm seeing a blizzard of Arab commentary on the subject but no real consensus. But smaller things have sparked disastrous confrontations in the past, and I only hope that this one does not.
UPDATE: as a friend points out, "it makes no sense" hardly rules it out. Just looking back at the botched 1997 Israeli assassination attempt against Khaled Meshaal, as masterfully chronicled in Paul McGeough's Kill Khaled, is enough to show that. The Meshaal episode, also authorized by a government led by Benjamin Netanyahu, targeted the rising Hamas leader on the streets of Israel's closest partner in the Arab world using agents holding foreign (Canadian) passports. King Hussein was so furious and humiliated that he demanded not only an antidote to the poison used on Meshaal but also the release of a number of Hamas leaders from Israeli prisons (including Shaykh Ahmed Yassin). It would have been difficult to make a sensible case for that attempt either. So we'll just see how this one unfolds, I'm afraid.
MOHAMMED ABED/AFP/Getty Images
It certainly could have been Israel. The nation has been known to carry out attacks like this in recent years and historically. However, we don't have enough data and it's not as though there aren't multitudes of governments and armed groups with grudges.
Acting under the assumption it was Israel:
It's entirely possible (though rather foolish if true) that Israel's government is attempting to goad Hamas into ending the de facto ceasefire.
Another possibility is that Israel believes that it can use these attacks to negotiate from a stronger position.
Acting under the assumption it wasn't:
It could be a rival Palestinian group that dislikes Hamas' recent stance. I find it hard to believe that it would be Fatah given Fatah's massive loss to Hamas in the Gaza Strip, but there are far more groups than just those two.
It could be another nation's intelligence agency.
It could have been criminal activity, not overtly political.
Wow, a sober analysis from Grant?
I recall seeing some very anti-Israel posts of yours in this past which were akin to those of "A Balanced View," whose accounts are about the furthest thing from balanced.
However, I will give respect when respect is due, and acknowledge that you gave a cogent analysis, free of conspiracy theories.
Fact is, there are a lot of individuals and groups, across sectarian lines, who wish harm upon Hamas. While this kind of attack has the Mossad written all over it, no rational person can simply point the finger and pretend that it HAD to have been a "Zionist conspiracy."
It is simply too early to judge, but good riddance to bad rubbish, IMHO.
My dislike of Israel is purely strategic. Israeli leaders simply aren't acting in a way that A. is beneficial to the nation of Israel and B. look set to create a new chaotic situation in less than twenty years. If Israel would admit that they have a demographic time bomb and either accept it or give up the Palestinian land I wouldn't care at all.
On the tactical level Israel is fairly impressive, with a relatively good assassination rate when the tactic is very difficult to use. I wish the CIA was as skilled.
Israel, Mossad, Hamas, and the Peace Process
Correct me if I'm wrong, but legally speaking, isn't the Israeli Government technically allowed to assassinate Hamas and Hezbollah leaders? For one thing, neither the United States or Israel (or most of the world for that matter) think of Hamas and Hezbollah as politically legitimate figures. I understand that Hamas is the governing authority in the Gaza Strip, and I know that Hezbollah holds seats in the Lebanese Parliament. But does the international community really consider the leadership of both organizations on par with European, Japanese, or Russian diplomats?
Obviously not, because if they were on par, it would be illegal for the Israelis to assassinate members of the Hamas leadership.
But legal speak aside, what this hit demonstrates is the pervasive power of the Mossad in all corners of the globe (if indeed this rumor is true). While they did in fact fail in the Meshaal operation a decade ago, Israeli agents have been able to keep under the radar and penetrate state defenses. They also employ thousands of people around the world into their ranks...keeping the Israeli Government far away from the controversy and the dirty-work.
Good for the Mossad, but not necessarily good for the peace process. I hope to God that Hamas does not retaliate. First off, it would derail any prospects for negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Second off, the fissures between Hamas and Fatah would only grow; making a united Palestinian coalition impossible. And thirdly, jihadists in the Gaza Strip sympathetic to Al'Qaeda (there are more and more these days) would have more reason to expand their war against the United States.
http://www.depetris.wordpress.com
Has it occurred to anyone that in all likelihood this assassination was a Fatah operation or, that at the very least, it was carried out with the acquiescence if not cooperation of forces loyal to President Abbas?
"The international norms against such assassinations have been thoroughly degraded by the Global War on Terror, and the Obama administration has escalated rather than reined in such measures."
The "international norms" against assassination apply only to political leaders, not to criminal terrorists. Furthermore, those norms do not apply at all during wartime. Military and government officials are legitimate military targets.
Hamas statement: "Our brother had been a target for the occupier ever since his participation in the kidnapping operation against the two Zionist soldiers, and for his role and support for the resistance."
What do you think of Hamas calling a kidnapper and murderer "our brother", Marc?
Marc: "But it's not obvious what that would even mean in this context -- it makes little strategic sense. "
What about the simple concept of justice (or retribution, if you prefer), Marc? Does everything have to make strategic sense? If the US had the opportunity to kill bin ladin we damn well better take it whether it makes "strategic sense" or not. There would be hell to pay with the American public if word ever got out that we passed on taking out bin ladin because we thought he was more useful alive than dead.
I believe the expression in English....
....Good riddance to bad rubbish.
However Hamas is a very violent organization and it could just as easily be a settlement of scores between Hamas or other Jihadi factions.
A point Mr. Lynch neglected to report is that al-Mabhouh was traveling on false papers so Dubai was unaware of his presence there. This would indicate a fairly limited number of people knew who he was and that he was in Dubai increasing the likely hood this was an inside affair.
Killing someone to settle a score and blaming it on Israel thereby creating a Martyr would not be inconsistent with past practices.
But to answer the question posited by Mr. Lynch, My opinion is no it won't affect the cease fire. As he noted it is simply a defacto cease fire not a formal cease fire and unofficially the cease fire only applies to Gaza.
This is a big concession by Hamas as in the past they have always insisted that cease fires had to cover both PA administered territories, so they could take credit for restraining Israel. Now since there are no explicit terms they seem to be abiding by Israel's terms so the cease fire is limited to Gaza.
What I find troubling is that Mr. Lynch is so concerned for the safety and welfare of a very violent and sadistic person (al-Mabhouh tortured Israeli captives before murdering them) and others who are equally a burden on the world.
I honestly hadn't even paged down past Grant's comment to see yours yet. "Good riddance to bad rubbish" is pretty quality way to sum up the situation, irrespective of who the "do'er" was.
I honestly hadn't even paged down past Grant's comment to see yours yet. "Good riddance to bad rubbish" is pretty quality way to sum up the situation, irrespective of who the "do'er" was.
I think the war of assassinations and cloak and dagger operations, go hand in hand with tensions between adversaries, wherever those tensions exist. This particular case of the assassination of Hamas man in the UAE, may indicate to us, whether Hamas is still capable of carrying out retaliatory actions, or/and whether it is politically mature enough to take it to take on the chin; if it thinks it can make political capital out of it.
As for Israel, I don't really think it would have risked the return to the situation of violence-counter-violence cycle; providing of course it is Israel whom has been the behind the assassination, without either being confident that Hamas is incapable of carrying out retaliation which can hurt it, or, thinking that a return to the situation of violence, can help deflect the world's attention from the stagnating peace process.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Possible Scenarios...
(a)Mahmoud al-Mabhouh died in a bizarre gardening accident whilst tending his desert plants on his apartment balcony.
(b) He was killed over a private criminal matter and Hamas is seeking to use the matter to point accusatory fingers and leverage their position.
(c) He was killed by members of his own organisation after a possible betrayal or over a past grudge.
(d) A certain intelligence organisation took him out because of his past nefarious activities.
The last option seems unlikely in the current trust-building climate. Or it could be that this is a message to the Hamas leadership over what will happen to them if certain negotiations don't progress. There is an art to being both brutal and nuanced.
It would be completely possible that a radical group within Gaza has assisinated him as well to destroy any chance a peace process might have had.
The political equation in the Middle East logically suggests that Israel ( or the Israeli intelligence, Mossad) is fully responsible about this "alleged" assassination. The antipathy has not faded between the Palestinian resistant movements and Israel since the latter was established in 1948. The Palestinian side believes that Israel is an occupation state, nobody can denounce this fact, and the Israeli side strongly tries to choke resistance movements. That is, the East has never met the West and they will never. Israel, as i think, depending on the facts, is the only side that is responsible about this kind of assassinations. Do you think so?
All respect.
1) Israel is a legitimate state.
2) Israel has since it's inception striven for Peace. At Oslo, Israel committed Itself again to Peace recognizing PLO and Fatah and NOT 'strongly tries to choke resistance movements'.
3) Only Israel assasinates? Are you f%$#ing kidding me? What cave are you emerging from?
That is standard behavior across the Arab and Muslim World. Lebanon and Iraq imediately jump to mind and that is just for a start. Sadat, Hariri, Gemayel? Yeshoh Hedaya, Abdul Ghassemlou, Bhutto.... None of these names you ever heard of?
Who just said Israel is a legitimate state?
A "legitimate state"? A legitimate state has boudaries. Israel has never fixed its boudaries. A legitimate state has a constitution. Israel has none. A legitimate state makes an effort to obey international law. Israel does not. A legitimate state does not exist on handouts. Israel exists on US handouts. A legitimate state does not rely on unqualified support from another state for its existence. Israel does. I could go on. . . at best it's a theocracy that exists on an idea, that "god gave us the land".
Well Mr. Lynch Hamas has spoken today and as I opined they have promised to retaliate outside of Gaza.
So it seems the Gaza operation was far more effective than it 1rst appeared to be. Hamas is now accepting the Israeli terms of a Gaza cease fire.
Two weeks ago, the Ma'an News agency (you know the one, HAMAS' own news organization that Mark Lynch has been complaining is getting blacklisted in the US) put out the following comments:
Published Wednesday 20/01/2010 (updated) 31/01/2010 15:35
Gaza – Ma'an – Hamas' armed wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades, announced the death of its co-founder in exile Mahmoud Al-Mabhuh, who died of terminal cancer in a hospital in the United Arab Emirates on Wednesday.
The Al-Qassam leader, a refugee who lived the Jabaliya Refugee Camp until he left Gaza for Dubai, was behind a mission that successfully captured two Israeli soldiers, a statement from the brigades said.
Al-Mabhuh captured two Israeli soldiers, Elan Sa’dun and Avi Sbortas, who were killed in the early 1990s by Al-Qassam fighters. "The soldiers were killed in military action following their capture," a statement said
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=255640
Of course, that was followed up by the accusation
That Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was electrocuted and strangled by this nefarious group of killers.
This was followed by the idea that
The group of assassins poisoned Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.
Now, the current tale is that Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was injected
with a "Heart attack drug". During which time, the same group supposedly rifled through the poor man's briefcase and took pictures of all the papers inside.
So which is it now?
Electrocution
Strangulation
Poison
Heart Attack Drug
My bet is Colonol Mustard in the Conservatory with the Wrench.
HAMAS, and Prof' Lynch's shock is as disengeneous as Claude Raines finding out that there was gambling going on at Rick's Cafe.
Israel always break the ceasefires
The ceasefire before the recent attack on Gaza was holding, with almost no rockets, even according to the figures from the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Then Israel on Nov 4 assassinated several Palestinian militants. If you look back over all the years you will see this pattern over and over - Israel does not like ceasefires and always takes the opportunity to kill some more Palestinians.
Hamas: Dubai assassins were likely Arabs, not Israelis
Agents of an Arab government, per Hamas sources according to this Haaretz article.
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1146944.html
When it comes to "Israel", there is nothing that is certain. It's an invented people living in an invented land spouting an invented history and even speaking an invented language! Do you want me to elaborate? Therefore, anything they claim must be taken in light of their history.
OK:
1. Invented people. Do you really believe every Jew can trace his blood line back to a tribe in the Middle East, and not to, let's say, the Khazars or maybe another group of converts?
2. Invented land. There has never been an Israel. It was invented by the United Nations.
3. Invented history. For starters, read Shlomo Sand's book, The Invention of the Jewish people.
4. Invented language. What was the name of that Zionist from Russia who invented Modern Hebrew sometime in the early 1900's? I believe he became so dissolusioned with the settlers that he went to Switzerland, never to return.
Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
Read More
(24)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE