A time to kill

[cynical lady]

The professional and presumably state-directed killing of a leading Palestinian has been exposed in embarrassing detail. Perhaps such methods have had their day.

 

Feb 18th 2010 | From The Economist print edition

 

USING subterfuge to entrap and kill adversaries, in locations far from any battlefield, has been a feature of conflict for the past 3,000 years or so—at least since Jael, one of the warrior heroines of ancient Israel, lured the enemy commander Sisera into her tent, lulled him to sleep with a refreshing drink of milk, and then used a tent peg to smash out his brains.

 

In modern times targeted killing is a more elaborate business, and many of the finer points—how the victim is stalked, how many people are involved—usually remain under wraps. But the plot to eliminate Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a Hamas commander who was found dead in a Dubai hotel room on January 20th, has been laid bare in stark detail by the police in that country, not normally regarded as a model of open government.

 

Hamas instantly blamed Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, confirming that the dead man was a founder of the movement’s military wing. Israel had fingered him in particular for the abduction and killing of two soldiers in 1989. Mr Mabhouh’s brother claimed that he had been killed by an electrical appliance that was held to his head. The local police said he had been suffocated.

 

The gory details of his end were not made public in Dubai, but many of the events that led up to it were starkly exposed. Indeed any amateur student of espionage and its tradecraft can now consult YouTube, the video-sharing site, to see closed-circuit television footage of some of the 11 people (all travelling on European passports) who are said by the Dubai authorities to have joined in the plot. On February 15th the country’s police chief offered a blow-by-blow account of the plotters’ doings, elucidating the images.

 

The key agents were “Gail” and “Kevin” who supervised the hit, and “Peter” who was in charge of preparatory logistics. In the films their appearances changed frequently. Kevin acquires glasses and a full head of hair, after going to the loo. It is clear that the plotters were expecting Mr Mabhouh’s arrival. One spotter waited at the airport; he duly tipped off a couple of colleagues, stout figures in tennis gear, who wait at the hotel and take note of the victim’s room number, 230. The plotters book room 237, which they use as a base. In later footage Gail and Kevin are seen pacing the corridor nearby. Four men in baseball caps, one also wearing gloves, are seen getting into a lift to leave; they seem to be the ones who did the job.

 

In Israel the initial reaction to the killing was of telling smirks, plus leaks to the effect that the victim was buying arms from Iran. But this gave way to embarrassment as the Dubai authorities produced their evidence, and as protests came from countries—Britain, France, Germany and Ireland—whose passports had apparently been faked or abused; and from individuals whose identities were “borrowed”.

 

The Israeli security services have never voiced any moral doubts about targeted assassinations (whether in the neighbourhood or farther afield) but there was a concern that the latest killing might go down on a list of plots that have misfired in unforeseen ways. In 1997, for instance, Mossad agents tried to eliminate Khaled Meshal, a senior Hamas official, in Jordan (see article). Two agents posing as Canadians were caught trying to poison him and Israel, under threat that its agents would be executed, agreed to send an antidote. In 1973 Israeli agents murdered a Moroccan waiter in Lillehammer in Norway, mistaking him for the leader of Black September, the group blamed for a massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.

 

These bungles contrast with operations that Israeli spooks recall with defiant pride: the killing of Imad Mughniyeh, a top member of Hizbullah, in Damascus in 2008 (a particular coup since Syria is hostile territory for Israel); and the dispatch of Abu Jihad, a senior Palestinian official and founder of the Fatah movement, by a squad that swooped into Tunis in 1988.

 

The not-so-cold war

Israel has no monopoly on killing its foes far from home. European countries, including Britain (since the 1950s, anyway) claim to eschew such methods. But during the cold war both superpowers conspired eagerly to eliminate people they deemed undesirable. In America there was a rethink after a committee, under Senator Frank Church, disclosed that it was probing a web of plots to kill senior figures in countries like Congo, Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Vietnam. This led to a series of presidential decisions—most famously order number 12,333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981—which barred assassinations.

 

The real force of such orders was to squelch rogue plots hatched in the lower levels of the security services; procedures still exist for the president, in consultation with congressional leaders, to authorise the killing of a perceived adversary. In 1998, three years before the 9/11 attacks, Bill Clinton mandated the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden, after bombs at American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

 

Since the start of the “war on terror”, the boundaries in American thinking between legitimate military action and cold-blooded assassination have become fuzzier still. Among America’s foreign-policy pundits there were serious discussions, back in 2003, as to whether simply killing Saddam Hussein would be a humane alternative to waging war against Iraq. More recently, as the fronts in the battle with al-Qaeda have broadened from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Somalia and Yemen, so too has the scope of American actions to eliminate perceived foes. Last September, for example, American helicopters fired on a convoy of trucks in Somalia and killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, who was blamed for an attack on an Israeli hotel in Kenya in 2002, and for the embassy bombs of 1998.

 

On February 3rd Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, told Congress that American forces might sometimes seek permission to kill a citizen of the United States, if he was a terrorist. This followed a report that Barack Obama had authorised an attack on Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American imam, in Yemen.

 

The operation in Somalia earned Mr Obama a rebuke in the Harvard law faculty, where he first shone as a progressive young legal scholar. Such actions were counterproductive and of dubious legitimacy, a columnist in the Harvard Law Record argued. But defenders of the right to kill selectively cite the shooting down of Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in the second world war, which was quite a cold-blooded business—though he was clearly an enemy combatant.

 

In truth, the factor that has changed the tactics of the American administration is less legal than mechanical: the advent of drones that can be directed with lethal accuracy (most of the time) from offices in Virginia. The best-known target was Baitullah Mehsud, leader of the Pakistani Taliban, who was blown up at his home in Waziristan last August. A study by the New America Foundation, a think-thank, points out that CIA drone attacks have become far more frequent since Mr Obama took office, with more strikes being ordered in his first ten months than in George Bush’s last three years.

 

In a world where Western voters demand maximum results for minimum expenditure of blood and treasure, assassination by machine has an obvious appeal to political leaders. Although they cost more “enemy” lives (including civilian ones) than old-time stabbing or poisoning, they also arouse less controversy. But for how long? Legal watchdogs say it makes unlawful killing more likely by dehumanising the process; and Pakistani officials, even those committed to fighting the Taliban, say the ruthless use of drones is alienating local people.

 

Whether death is by computer or by more old-fashioned methods, the antecedents and details of assassination are easier to hide in rough, remote locations than in rich, westernised ones. And even in wild places, awkward facts can come out—as they obviously did in Dubai.

 

Views: 1 2 >> Last 1-20 of 26

KennyNLM wrote: Feb 18th 2010 4:43 GMT You have to applaud the chutzpah of the Israeli government (assuming they were responsible of course) in still managing to carry out these type of operations despite technological advances made in the security arena, and in countries such as Syria / UAE.

 

It will be interesting to consider whether Israel believe that the end result of this project was a success or failure. They are taking a big hit politically from the Europeans on this, but so long as they don't upset the Americans I'm sure they won't mind too much.

Recommend (4)PermalinkReport abuse

Falcon2000 wrote: Feb 18th 2010 6:11 GMT How to describe a criminal? The one who killed two Israelis or that ones who killed this murderer? Is there any difference between them? Do use fake (or "borrowed") passports is a crime? I cannot see any difference between killers. In my view, a crime doesn´t justify another; Israel (if it's proved its participation in this killing) should arrest this criminal for life and does not act as him.

Recommend (5)PermalinkReport abuse

 

watchingchina wrote: Feb 18th 2010 7:04 GMT This is incredible. We are discussing murder. Any person committing this act inside a country, including Israel or the US, will be sent to prison for a long time.

 

But the US and Israeli governments can kill anybody they want, and that's ok. Well, if my government can kill someone they don't like, why can't I do the same? There is no substative difference, except in the power I yield, but that isn't part of the issue.

 

And we have ignorance telling us we have to 'admire' the 'chutzpah' of the people who do such things. Why is that? What is there to admire in a government sending agents to another country to kill someone they don't like?

 

In what way is Israel (in this case) different from the Mafia? How are these people different from the Kosher Nostra members like Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegel, Dutch Schultz, John Gotti Jr., Lepke Buchalter?

 

And the Economist thinks, "Gee, maybe this should stop"?

Recommend (7)PermalinkReport abuse

 

watchingchina wrote: Feb 18th 2010 7:19 GMT I have a supplementary question. What would happen if it had been China that had carried out one of these assassination/murders on foreign soil?

 

Can you imagine the flood of international outrage? All the drama and hyperbole, all the posturing and condemnation that would ensue?

 

Or what if Canada did such a thing, or Sweden, or Australia? Can you imagine the fallout, the horror that would be generated, the vast swing in public opinion?

 

So why is it that our two surviving military/Imperial powers, the US and Israel, can do this with such impunity? Why is there no horror generated, not universal condemnation of a barbaric extra-judicial act?

 

Is it only the US and Israel who can go abroad to kill those they don't like, to commit murder in another country and just go home and be smug and say, "We neither confirm nor deny...."?

 

What the hell is going on with the world?

Recommend (14)PermalinkReport abuse

 

A Sane Voice wrote: Feb 18th 2010 8:20 GMT The thing to remember here is that this is war.

This is not a killing of some one who was not 'liked', no.

We are talking about killing a murderer, who has an active part in ongoing offensive operations (buying arms from Iran to smuggle and use them in the attacks on Israelis).

So, who ever did this (and there seems to be an consensus about that) has the justification of self defense, if protecting Israelis.

 

But that aside, people here have asked what if other countries did it? Well, they did, didn't they? Look at China and Tibet for example.

They are doing it, no? Look at the American drones mentioned in the article, the many assasinations the Russians undertook (like their ex-spy who was poisoned with radioactive materials in Britain just recently) and so on.

 

So, this was a combatant that was killed during a war.

It is an ugly thing to have taken place, but necessary if defending others he would have helped to murder.

The place is definitely a better place for his departing, let's just hope that the long terms solution (peace) will come quickly and will make prevent such killings.

Recommend (7)PermalinkReport abuse

 

davidhutchinson wrote: Feb 18th 2010 8:21 GMT Watchingchina is wrong. In traditional warfare, each side dresses in red uniforms and faces eachother. In dirty warfare, the enemy dresses as a civilian, hides behind women and children, and kills or kidnaps you by surprise. He disregards the rules (chivalry) and thus forfeits his rights. Small wonder that he pays for his crimes.

Recommend (8)PermalinkReport abuse

 

firsys wrote: Feb 18th 2010 9:06 GMT The suggestion that the brilliantly executed plan to kill Admiral Yamamoto was "cold blooded" , is laughable; Yamamoto was supreme commander in the Pacific and the architect of the infamous attack on Pearl harbour. He was one of the principals in the decision to attack the United States.

He was a key military officer in a military aircaft and the plan to shoot this downwas more complicated but no more immoral than destroying a warship.

Given his fanatical loyalty to Emperor Hirohito, he would have chosen this death over dying in his bunk!

Assassination of incovenient political leaders is an entirely different moral proposition.

JMF

Recommend (4)PermalinkReport abuse

 

Froy'' wrote: Feb 18th 2010 9:21 GMT The Economist asks itself if state-directed assassinations like the one just perpetrated by Israel "have had their day". But talking about a country that still believes in right of conquest to expand its territory, where religion has the final say in capital matters of its society and which, heck, it's the last colonial regime of our times, this is quite a misplaced question. For government-sponsored assassinations to have had their day in Israel, Israel should be living in our days in the first place! Perhaps it's imperialism and colonialism what have had their day, and it't time for them to end, once and for all.

Recommend (4)PermalinkReport abuse

 

Nirvana-bound wrote: Feb 18th 2010 9:46 GMT Political assassinations will continue unabated & undercover till Kingdom-come, or till humans come clean & eschew completely from machievallian political intrigue & aggression - most unlikely if not totally inhuman!!

 

Mossad is just following the sacrosanct & age-old tradition of subversion, espionage & intrigue set by MI5/MI6, KGB & CIA, among others.

 

The only thing that may/will change is the mode of the assassinations, what with the advent of drones & other high tech killing machines, available for deployment at the flick of a switch or touch of a computer key.

 

So what's new ***** Cat??

Recommend (2)PermalinkReport abuse

 

Logical Truth wrote: Feb 18th 2010 10:19 GMT Better kill 1 terrorist than let the terrorist kill 1 civilian. Or more as the case usually is.

 

As for the people talking about arrest. How do you propose Israel would arrest a violent terrorist outside of their jurisdiction. Sometimes to achieve justice and prevent the killing of more innocent civilians there is no other option.

Recommend (5)PermalinkReport abuse

 

noname1004 wrote: Feb 18th 2010 11:08 GMT I am glad to see that in general (at least according to election results) the Western Europe is moving away from the "liberal" insanity - at least when it comes to dealing with terrorists. War is war - whether its one nation against another or a nation against an entity. Hamas is a terrorist group - recognized as such by many western nations. Hamas wages a daily war on Israel - hence any member of that organization is a enemy. What happens to enemies during war? Care to remember WWII? Other campaigns by western nations?

 

I think its very easy to sit here and discuss the so called morals of "all murders being equal" - until terrorists G-d forbid hit your town. I am not surprised by the ambiguity of the article - I come to expect that from journalists (after all they sometimes have to work with the enemy to get the hot articles and they don't want to piss the enemy off - immoral as it is) but the responses from the readers are somewhat bizarre. You hate Israel and Jews? Fine, but the terrorists are hitting Europe as well. Think of what you would do if YOUR TOWNS were shelled and your buses blown up. And do not even try to pull the whole "occupied land" story - as every single nation on earth lives on someone else's land - even your favorite Australia and Canada. You want justice - give land back to Indians and Aboriginal people of Australia.

Recommend (4)PermalinkReport abuse

 

James Gaffney wrote: Feb 19th 2010 12:01 GMT If I was caught forging passports I would expect to spend a long time in prison. What action, if any, can the governments of Ireland, the UK and the other countries under whose passports the agents were travelling take against Mossad for these crimes?

Recommend (2)PermalinkReport abuse

 

jbaustian wrote: Feb 19th 2010 1:01 GMT Target eliminated, no collateral damage, no innocent civilians harmed -- mission 100% successful. Too bad the agents were filmed and their cover was blown, but a small price to pay.

Recommend (6)PermalinkReport abuse

 

Cutters wrote: Feb 19th 2010 1:02 GMT Ignorance maybe a blessing, but the truth is a greater if bitter medicine. If Israel is found to have used passports in this way, I hope that they will be "diplomatically" cut off.

 

"Hamas is a terrorist group" and democratically elected. If all other countries declared there neighbours governments terrorists, then the fallout would be nuclear.

 

"You hate Israel and Jews?" Since when were all Israelis "Jews"? The criminal action "alleged or otherwise" by a government of a nation, should, where such action would not endanger its citizen, be taken against that government alone. However if Israel "is" found to be endangering the citizens of Europe, then maybe all Israelis should be banned from entry, and Jews monitored in the same way that Muslims are.

Recommend (3)PermalinkReport abuse

andrewdal wrote: Feb 19th 2010 2:05 GMT I’m not sure that Israel would qualify this as a bungle. A) They really don’t care what others think and they don’t care who they harm as long as it helps their cause. Clearly their actions continue to be a liability to their main ally the US but they show no interest in changing their evil ways. Remember 911 and all the other terrorist efforts against the US are punishment for its protection of the apartheid state. B) Israel likely looks at this as just another warning to don’t F with us, we do what we want, no matter what the rest of the world says. At the end of the day the terrorists will continue to attack the US because, hey it’s easier and safer. So what the US and others need to do is finally sanction this rogue state by cutting funding and support. Alternatively we could tell Israel that you don’t get another dollar until you assassinate Bin Laden. But then that would be against their interests at the end of the day. As their leaders have stated terrorism against the US helps their cause.

Recommend (2)PermalinkReport abuse

 

watchingchina wrote: Feb 19th 2010 3:00 GMT A Sane Voice wrote:

 

".... this is war. This is not a killing of some one who was not 'liked', no. We are talking about killing a murderer, who has an active part in ongoing offensive operations (buying arms from Iran to smuggle and use them in the attacks on Israelis ...."

 

What an odd interpretation of the facts. There is no declared 'war', where the person in question was shot on the battlefield. This was a government-sponsored murder, plain and simple.

 

And he was a 'murderer' because he was 'engaging in offensive activities' - bringing arms to Palestine?

 

And so what? Israel is 'at war', right? And they have the 'right' to arms to attack and defend themselves, but the other side has 'no right' to arms to defend themselves? What kind of war is that?

 

This is just foolish Israeli propaganda. The Jews 'buy' arms, but the Arabs 'smuggle' them. Well, how nasty of them. Why don't the Arabs just 'buy' their arms in the market like everyone else?

 

Israel has completely isolated the Palestinian borders so the Arabs have no way to obtain arms to defend themselves against the savagery and cleansing that continues. Israel has probably a 95% superiority in arms and wants to keep it that way.

 

That's really clever PR. I attack you with my military and then accuse you of being a criminal when you try to obtain arms to defend yourself. Cute. And you they have leaders who help you overcome, then I just assassinate them because they're 'murderers'.

 

Israel must withdraw to its original borders and return all the land, including the West Bank, to the Palestinians. Then, the war will be over.

 

What is happening in Palestine is one of the greatest tragedies in modern history, and we don't need Jewish sympathisers like noname1004 to call us 'jew-haters' and nazis for speaking out about the atrocities.

 

So I'm a 'jew-hater'? Well, you're a Palestinian-hater. Sounds the same to me.

Recommend (11)PermalinkReport abuse

 

derridaderider wrote: Feb 19th 2010 4:02 GMT There's an obvious reason that states only assassinate people who are not heads of another state - the threat of retaliation. There is an informal Presidents' Union that prevents this sort of thing.

 

So just as terrorism is the tool of those who do not possess an air force, so the risk of targeted assassination is mainly for those who do not possess their own secret service.

Recommend (1)PermalinkReport abuse

 

Andrii wrote: Feb 19th 2010 4:37 GMT I have to agree with watchingchina.

Israel defenitely has the right to defend itself and its citizens.

But what if China or chinese agents were cought on film while attempting to assasinate, say Dalay-Lama? It hurts the sionist cause more than helps it.

RecommendPermalinkReport abuse

 

noname1004 wrote: Feb 19th 2010 4:39 GMT I want to reiterate one point - all those praising the article and bashing Israel (even though you have no proof that it was indeed Mossad who carried out the action) are forgeting one simple thing. This "war" declared or undeclared can come to the neighborhood near you. You can hate Israel or Jews, or "love" only Jews (if they are suffering - who wants to love someone who is prosperous??) but hate Israel - NONE of that is going to matter when the bombs are exploding within the borders of YOUR nation. And unlike this assassination, the terrorists are not going to be targeting Obama or some other politician - we have seen this already in Spain, UK, India. Once again, I am glad that Europe is waking up. This can be seen by the leadership elected in France, Germany, Italy... by the recent developments in Switzerland. The history repeats itself - its the Jews who are always getting hit first - but they are NEVER the only ones suffering at the hands of maniacs. Antisemitism (now called anti-Zionism) is symptom of a much much larger problem which you my friends I am afraid are going to see over and over again unless Europe wakes up. Do you think Hamas and co wants Israel? Or independent Palestine? These guys will never want peace as its not profitable. Look at Taliban as an example. Pakistani's tried to appease them with Islamic law and what happened? Same thign happened in Somalia. I am glad that all "pacifists" who replied here as well as the pseudo-intelligentsia writings such articles are in the minority.

Recommend (3)PermalinkReport abuse

 

Isaac from Texas wrote: Feb 19th 2010 5:26 GMT Resp to watchingchina:

Actually, there is a declared war. Hamas has the declared intent of destroying Israel and Israel has declared Gaza a hostile entity, so both sides have declared war. As the article rightly points out, killing in warfare has never been confined to the battlefield. Furthermore, the dead terrorist was engaged in purchasing arms for Gaza. He was therefore both part of the military leadership of Hamas and part of the supply lines of a belligerent entity. Both are legitimate targets.

Most notably, not one civilian was harmed by this assassination. For those who complain that Israel did not kill this terrorist on the battlefield, well, Hamas’ battlefield of choice is the homes, schools, and masques of Gaza from which they launch their rockets. I have a feeling that those who complain of this assassination also complain about Cast Lead. So, you would argue that Israel may neither kill its enemies on the battlefield or off of it? So, Israel, of all sovereign nations, does not have the right to fight its sworn enemies? Sorry, that exposes your anti-Israel bias and renders your arguments no longer worth addressing.

Recommend (5)PermalinkReport abuse

[Ibtisam]

This followed a report that Barack Obama had authorised an attack on Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American imam, in Yemen.

:eek: :eek: Wooho I did not know this, May Allah keep him safe.

 

As for Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, May Allah have mercy on him and forgive him. I watched the CCTV posted by LSK in the other thread. I have a lot of things to say but nothing I can say without landing in hot water. So I'm bite my tongue for once.

[Sherban Shabeel]

Maybe the EU will finally turn against Israel after this scandal. For too long, Israel has been the spoiled guilt child of occidental politics.

[Chocolate and Honey]

What bugs me the most is you mention Isreal and all gaalo especially the Americans get so F-ing big brotherly protective. "Isreal has a right to defend itself," they argue. Yeah, in someonelse's home? This conflict is pure madness.

[Sherban Shabeel]

All gaalo? I would be careful with these sweeping generalizations.

[General Duke]

These bungles contrast with operations that Israeli spooks recall with defiant pride: the killing of Imad Mughniyeh, a top member of Hizbullah, in Damascus in 2008 (a particular coup since Syria is hostile territory for Israel); and the dispatch of Abu Jihad, a senior Palestinian official and founder of the Fatah movement, by a squad that swooped into Tunis in 1988.

 

these were big hits, they claim the Mughniya case now while denying it at the time.

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by chocolate & honey:

What bugs me the most is you mention Isreal and all gaalo especially the Americans get so F-ing big brotherly protective.

What would you like they rather do? Join Islamic antisemitism fiesta?

 

 

Originally posted by chocolate & honey:

Yeah, in someonelse's home?

Israelis are in their home. They've been living in Israel long before a single Arab/Muslim set a foot in that land. Even Al-Asqa Mosque is built on the ruins of Jewish temple.

[Sherban Shabeel]

^Just because you've lived somewhere 2000 years ago doesn't mean you can just take over and get rid of the people who live there now. It's absolutely ridiculous.

[Che -Guevara]

^The land of Israel was promised to the Jews (descendants of Isaac) by God-apparently Mr.Raamsade approves of this God. You see he's friendly God that understands the malicious attempts by the Palestinians to steal the land which they have inhibited for centuries from the Jews who were on vacation to Ethiopia, I heard the weather is great and the food is, oh yummy, and to Europe, I mean come on, who among us can resist skiing on the Alps-it is understandably it took the Jews centuries to return from just great vacation.

 

Well anyway, the God of Isaac (Ishmael turned out to be just disappointment) welcomes back his people (anyone who claims to have any trace of Jewish blood). Palestinians, please move out. You have been just bad house-sitters anyway.

[cynical lady]

And the plot thickens ....Foreign Office denies knowing about Hamas plot.

 

The Foreign Office dismissed claims that it knew about the Hamas assassination plot in advance as "completely untrue" today.

 

 

A spokeswoman insisted the department had "no prior knowledge" of the operation or the involvement of cloned British passports.

 

An article in today's Daily Mail featured allegations from a British security source that the Foreign Office had been told Israeli agents were going to carry out "an operation" abroad and would be travelling on British passports.

 

 

The source told the newspaper he had spoken with an agent from Israeli secret service Mossad - which is suspected of being behind the hit.

 

 

"He says the British Government was told very, very briefly before the operation what was going to happen," the source reportedly said.

 

 

"There was no British involvement and they didn't know the name of the target. But they were told these people were travelling on UK passports."

 

 

The Foreign Office said it only found out about the murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai last month when details appeared in media reports.

 

 

And the department insisted it was only told that cloned British passports were involved shortly before authorities in the Gulf state went public with the information.

 

 

"Any suggestion that we knew anything about the murder in Dubai before it happened, including about the misuse of British passports, is completely untrue," the spokeswoman said.

 

 

"As we have said already, the Dubai authorities told us about the role of British passports on February 15, several hours before their press conference. We told them the following day that the passports used were fraudulent.

 

 

"The head of the Dubai police has also made clear that embassies were not contacted until shortly before the identity of the suspects was revealed."

 

 

Dubai police have said that cloned passports belonging to six British Israelis and five Irish citizens were used by a hit squad who allegedly killed the Hamas commander.

 

 

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague yesterday called for "fuller" answers about when the Foreign Office was aware fake British passports had been used, saying reports in the Gulf suggested British ministers may have been alerted by Dubai authorities last month.

 

 

"We have had 13 years of the current Government and believing at face value immediately everything they say has not been borne out by experience," he said.

 

 

He added: "I'm not suggesting complicity with Israel, I simply say there are news reports in the Gulf that this may have been known about by the British Government or other governments at an earlier stage."

 

 

Foreign Secretary David Miliband branded the abuse of ID documents "outrageous" and demanded that Tel Aviv co-operate fully with the UK's investigation.

 

 

But after being called in to discuss the situation with officials in London yesterday, Israel's ambassador Ron Prosor flatly denied there was any "additional information" to give.

 

 

Tel Aviv's ambassador to Ireland, Zion Evrony, delivered a similarly blank message after an hour of discussions with diplomat David Cooney in Dublin.

 

 

Red notices have been issued via Interpol in the hunt for 11 people allegedly involved in the hit, and the UK's Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) is also investigating.

 

 

Senior officers in Dubai say they are "99% certain" that Mossad was behind the murder. Tel Aviv has refused to confirm or deny the link.

 

Dubai yesterday explicitly accused Mossad of assassinating Hamas military commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh on its soil, as David Miliband declared the use of British passports in the plot "an outrage" and demanded "full co-operation" from Israel in finding out what had happened.

 

 

The Foreign Secretary's comments came after an apparently fruitless meeting in London between the Israeli ambassador Ron Prosor and Sir Peter Ricketts, the permanent secretary who heads Britain's diplomatic service, which lasted just 14 minutes with no sign of any intelligence being shared. As the Israeli envoy left Whitehall, he said: "I was unable to add any information. I could not shed new light on the said matters".

 

There was a similar outcome in Dublin where the Israeli ambassador, Zion Evrony, had an hour's meeting with a senior Irish diplomat over how three Eire passports were used in the assassination. "I told him I know nothing about the event," Mr Evrony said afterwards

 

The international fallout into Mabhouh's death showed no sign of abating. In Paris, the French government also summoned an Israeli diplomat, and Germany – often seen as one of the West European countries most sympathetic to Israel – called on Israel to "provide any information it had which might help explain the circumstances" of the Hamas militant's death.

 

In Dubai, police chief Lt General Dahi Khalfan Tamim told the government-owned National newspaper that it was "99 per cent if not 100 per cent" certain that the Israeli intelligence agency was behind Mabhouh's killing in a luxury hotel room last month.

 

In comments due to be aired on Dubai TV last night, he also called on Interpol to issue "a Red Notice against the head of Mossad... as a killer in case Mossad is proved to be behind the crime, which is likely now".

 

Red Notices are a step short of an international arrest warrant but allow Interpol "to assist national police forces in identifying or locating those persons with a view to their arrest and extradition". There was no immediate comment from Israel in response to the Dubai police chief's claims.

 

Yesterday Interpol published Red Notices for the 11 suspects wanted in connection with the slaying at the Al Bustan Hotel, along with their photographs and "fraudulently used" names on the passports used in order "to limit the ability of the accused murderers from travelling freely using the same false passports", the international anti-crime agency said. Interpol said the notices were not meant to stigmatise those whose identities were stolen, but to help clear them of suspicion by helping police apprehend the true suspects, whose offences are listed as "crimes against life and health".

 

Meanwhile, Hamas leaders yesterday identified the two Palestinian suspects being held by Dubai authorities in connection with the assassination as members of security forces loyal to the Fatah movement of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, implying but not explicitly saying that Fatah collaborated with Israel in carrying out the killing.

 

They named the two as Ahmed Hasanein and Anwar Shehaybar, saying they were Gazans who left the Strip after Hamas seized power from Fatah there in 2007. One of the two is said to have been in contact with a member of the hit squad, "Peter", in the days before the assassination, and both are believed to have been arrested in the Jordanian capital, Amman, before being extradited to Dubai. Responding to the Hamas allegations, Palestinian Authority spokesman Ghassan Khatib said: "We're confident the PA was not involved."

 

In London, Mr Miliband, stressed that the Israeli government had been told of the depth of British concern and insisted that an inquiry by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency ordered by Prime Minister Gordon Brown was not merely "going through the motions".

 

"What the Permanent Secretary made clear is that we hope and expect Israel will co-operate fully with the investigation and to send back to his government the seriousness with which we are addressing this situation. There has obviously been a very serious incident involving British passports and British passport holders who woke up yesterday morning extremely worried. The most important thing is to get to the bottom of the misuse of fraudulent British passports."

 

The Foreign Secretary is expected to discuss the issue with his Israeli counterpart Avigdor Lieberman on Monday when the pair will be in Brussels.

 

Security sources have confirmed that the threatened end to the intelligence sharing between the UK and Israel was yet to materialise.

 

The officials stressed that normal service would continue, unless it was conclusively proven that Mossad had used forged British passports in the murder.

 

God bless Diplomacy.

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/foreign-office-denies-knowing-about-hamas-plot-1904708 .html