My colleague John Mackinlay has been thinking about the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Like Ken he is concerned about the reputational effects of the killing. Says John:
The most ardent critic of the Israeli state might have felt a flicker of sympathy for Ambassador Ron Prosor as he stood in front of the Foreign Office railings on the 18th February shortly after his no-coffee meeting with Sir Peter Ricketts. The allegation that Mossad’s use of British passports to get their hit squads into Dubai in order to kill a Palestinian official will probably not be proven. No matter; the international press has already decided it was Mossad.
Potentially for the British and for Ambassador Proser this sends the bleak message that the Israeli state is so careless of its relations with UK that it uses British passports to facilitate its extra judicial killings in foreign countries. Potentially for the UK the unavoidable conclusion must be that for the Israelis maintaining their goodwill has little priority, particularly in the certainty that the passports would be detected.
Earlier this month, at an academic conference in Israel we were briefed on the military operations and forceful arrangements, which ensure Israel’s fragile security. An Israeli academic was asked whether these muscular precautions expressed a body language that antagonised distant populations which might have otherwise been neutrally disposed to Israel. He replied that the disposition of these populations scarcely mattered. If it was a choice between Israel’s well being and the outrage of a distant community, Israelis would always act in favour of their own interests.
Yesterday on the railings outside the FCO, Ambassador Proser’s benign composure was compromised by his security guard standing close behind him, whose watchful eyes continuously flicked from left to right , up to the buildings above and down to the street below.
To what extent do the Israelis have security if Ambassador Proser is the only diplomat in town who has to drive from his embassy to Whitehall so closely shadowed by this menacing man and an armoured BMW containing plasma and automatic weapons? And are the Israelis the last country in the world (with the possible exception of the North Koreans) to understand that security is no longer a matter of walls and tank battalions, and that it is the outrage arising from the narrative, rather than the reality, of their conduct, which will ultimately penetrate their security in the interconnected and globalised 21st century world?
For myself, I must admit a large degree of sympathy with the Israelis. For one, it seems to me that their security does actually depend upon a wall. Whether it also depends on tank battalions is another question–my gut feeling says it does that too. Of course this will inspire outrage; but I wonder where are these populations that are potentially otherwise neutrally disposed toward Israel? How much will this attack raise the long since redlined outrage-o-meter? Now whether or not the assassinations contribute to security in the long run I don’t know. It seems to me, however, that there is a population which this action does send a clear message to: Israelis. One of the functions of a state is to provide security to its citizens. If it cannot, at least completely, then it may mollify its population to the brutal reality that while their ambassador cannot make the trip from his embassy to Whitehall without an armoured car and a commando then at least their persecutors will be punished. A few more decades like the one just passed and we too might clamour for such a bargain.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
The BBC did give at least point out several strange questions about the assassination such as the fact that it occurred even though the hotel was booked and ticket bought just a day before he went to Dubai (suggesting that either Israel has someone very high up in the organization or that it was an inside job) and that he was confident enough to go on even though his bodyguards couldn’t go with him*.
For the topic of security, this doesn’t change the equation for the foreign population much on its own. If Israel were earnestly courting other nations this might be an error, but in the current system where Israel acts in defiance of the powerful and infuriates its peers this hasn’t changed anything**.
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8521942.stm
** This of course is still assuming that Israel actually was responsible for the assassination. I’m conflicted enough that I’ll wait twenty years and see what the books say then.
I am mystified by the British reaction that using UK passports is somehow an offense to the nation, rather on the line of Mr Obama’s visit with the Dalai Lama that has offended the Chinese. Isn’t it more of a compliment than an offense? Would the US State Department call in the Israeli ambassador and give him or her a rocket if it transpired that the assassins also carried a satchel of $100 bills? Of course not. $100 bills, like UK passports, are the gold standard for crossing borders. My granddaughters have dual citizenship, but it is the UK passport that they present everywhere except Boston and Miami.
As for the Israeli ambassador’s travel companion and vehicle, are they that much different from Mr Obama’s? Both have good reason to fear a sniper, and not because of ill will from distant populations. Blue skies! — Dan Ford
Actually it isn’t a compliment and it was a serious violation of norms. To start this could have meant that Britain was held responsible for an assassination that it apparently had nothing to do with. That has serious blowback in diplomatic matters. Another point is that this could put British citizens in danger if they become suspected of something that a false citizen did. Third, what if the target had been someone that Britain was dealing with? That could jeopardize British diplomacy with such people worldwide.
And a more apt comparison on your part would be “what if the satchel contained hundreds of $100 dollar bills printed a few days ago and the money was used to bribe a Chinese official?” That might raise questions.
Interesting perspectives from John and David on Mahmoud al-Mabhouh’s assassination. John sees it as a new chapter in the narrative of outrage while David thinks it is the understandable action of a state acting in self-defence. Both interpretations draw out the central issue – legitimacy. Was the murder of a Hamas leader a justifiable action? We already know the answers from the Israeli public and the diaspora populations. But the only answer that counts now is the one which David Milliband gives.
“the international press has already decided it was Mossad [who carried out the assassination”.
It’s amazing and frightening that world leaders would be influenced by what the “international press”, that fount of wisdom and accurate information (I’m being sarcastic), thinks. The “international press” is pretty much the last place I’d rely on for acurate information about anything. Yes apparently the public, a well as politicians, rely on it if it blames Israel. Truly disgusting.
The murder was pure John Le Carre. No need to rely on the international press. Anyone who doubts who was responsible should dig out a copy of “The Little Drummer Girl”.
Alan Dershowitz points out something interesting here:
“…The Goldstone Report suggests that Israel cannot lawfully fight Hamas rockets by wholesale air attacks. Richard Goldstone, in his interviews, has suggested that Israel should protect itself from these unlawful attacks by more proportionate measures, such as commando raids and targeted killing of terrorists engaged in the firing of rockets. Well, there could be no better example of a proportionate and focused attack on a combatant deeply involved in the rocket attacks on Israel than the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.”
A war is a war. The U.S. tracked and assassinated Admiral Yamamoto during WWII.
Israel is not in a declared war with anyone, different laws and acceptable standards apply.