SR: And there doesn't appear to be any evidence against him anyway? DM: There isn't any. He absolutely insists that he was not involved. Albeit he was the General Secretary of the PFLP, he was not head of the military wing. He was not consulted or had any discussions regarding this particular act against the cabinet member Rehavam Ze'evi.
And you need to remember he hadn't been the leader of the PFLP for very long. I would liken him, in broad terms, to Gerry Adams - head of Sinn Fein at the time of IRA military action.
Certainly no Israeli has ever been arrested for the killing of his predecessor. If that person has been detained without charge for four years and there was a British involvement, and I was instructed by the client, I would be equally outraged. SR: You were involved in a separate case: the issuing of the warrant, through the District Judge and the Metropolitan Police, to arrest Israeli Defence Force General Doron Almog when he flew to London last year DM: At some point on Sunday September 11, the Israeli embassy in London became aware that there was a warrant out tor him and that police officers were going to be at Heathrow waiting for him on his arrival.
We believe that information came from the police. There were contacts then made between the Israeli embassy and the foreign ministry. It's very likely that there was a decision transmitted to the police officers on the ground not to board "Albeit he was the General Secretary of the PFLP, he was not head of the military wing." the plane. We find that very, very suspicious. It's not as though the police know how to do this, don't do it or haven't done it.
The pilot was phoned by someone from the Israeli embassy and told to not let Almog leave the plane. While he was on the plane the military attaché from the Israeli Embassy actually then came through security somehow and boarded the plane, met Mr Almog in person and told him then that there was a police officer waiting, there is a warrant out, don't leave, go back, this plane is turning round anyway.
We have also now been involved in a long complaints procedure that we hope the Independent Police Complaints Commission will take over as their own investigation.
We asked for a criminal investigation of everybody involved. SR: Since then high-ranking Israeli Defence Force officers have been advised not to travel to this country. DM: That's correct
British officials have been in discussion with the IDF to see how the arresting of their generals Cal be avoided in the future.
There have been two meetings between British and Israeli officials. What they want to happen is for the right to apply for an arrest warrant - which is part of a criminal process under the Geneva Conventions Act that doesn't require the involvement of the Attorney General -for that procedure to be amended so that it either will always require the AG's direct consent or involvement; or some broader changes in relation to any warrant for someone who is a foreign national.
This is very worrying. Why change the status quo because of a request by the Israelis? SR: This is similar to what happened to the attempt in Belgium to indict Sharon, isn't it? DM: Well exactly SR: Belgium was put under American pressure and ended up changing its law. DM: Yes and in our view there could very well be American pressure going on for the very same reasons. The Americans also don't want their nationals, who are suspected of committing international crimes, to be subject of possible arrest warrants issued by a British judge. SR: Wasn't another Israeli general stopped from travelling here recently to study at an English academy? DM: General Aviv Kochavi was accepted on the course at the Royal College of Defence Studies. There is evidence of his involvement in grave breaches.
He was due to come to the UK, but was given advice by the Military Advocate General [of the IDF] not to travel. A number of countries are now considered to be off-limits for their generals.
(This as an edited version of the interview, the full version can be found at www.socialistresistance.net) Roland Rance The recent Israeli election produced no clear winner, and several losers. On the surface, it was an unexciting result; but several underlying factors which show the ways in which Israeli politics is moving.
Kadima, the party founded by the comatose Ariel Sharon, was officially the winner. But its 29 seats (out of the total 120) was far short of the 40+ originally forecast, and is the lowest number of seats yet to be gained by the "winner" in Israel's electoral history.
The rump Likud, under the unpopular Binyamin Netanyahu, suffered a humiliation, slumping from 27 to 11 seats, and dropping to fifth place behind the ultra-orthodox Shas and the openly racist Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home).
The other great loser was the neo-liberal "Shinui - Party for the Secular and the Middle Class", which lost all 14 of its seats following an acrimonious split.
Despite this, the Labour Party, under its new leader, Moroccanborn trade unionist Amir Peretz, although coming second, dropped from 21 to 20 seats.
Yisrael Beitenu nearly quadrupled its representation, to 11 seats. The party, based largely among recent Russian immigrants, calls for removing all Arabs from Israel, either by expulsion or redrawing the border. Israeli journalist Uri Avnery describes the party as "a mutation of the Right with openly fascist tendencies".
The big surprise of the election was the rise from nowhere of the Pensioners' Party, led by former Mossad head Rafi Eitan. Eitan, who organised the kidnapping of Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann from Argentina, and supervised Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard in the USA, is a veteran of the Israeli security establishment. The party's other six representatives are leaders of professional associations and workers' committees dismayed at the effect on their pensions of former finance minister Netanyahu's monetarist policies. It is not yet clear whether the party has any developed position on other issues, including on peace and security.
Despite the apparent huge differences between the twelve parties in the new Knesset, all except for the three "Arab" parties (which won a total of ten seats) stand, in one way or another, for separation of Jews from Arabs in Palestine. Some would achieve this by withdrawing behind recognised borders, while others prefer to expand and remove the Palestinians.
All of them accept the security logic behind Sharon's apartheid wall, and all reject negotiations with a Hamas-led Palestinian government.
There have, however, been important, but little-noticed, shifts. The big losers were the neo-liberal parties whose poliThe overall lesson of these elections is that most Israelis want to forget, or ignore, the Palestinian people and their oppression, and to turn inwards and address the country's huge economic and social problems cies have caused huge economic problems for Israel's working class and poor. This is reflected in the appearance of the Pensioners' Party.
It can also be seen in the Labour Party's vote. Although its share of the vote remained almost unchanged, exit polls suggest that at least half of the party's former voters defected.
Many of them refused to vote for Peretz, either through racist hostility to his Moroccan origin, or through anger at his failure, as leader of the Histadrut, to mount an effective opposition to Netanyahu's policies.
This loss, however, was compensated by an apparent big swing to Labour among the poor and working-class Israelis (overwhelmingly of Arab Jewish origin) in the slums and development towns. These communities have in the past provided the bulk of the vote for the nationalist right-wing.
It appears that Israel is seeing the beginnings of a political realignment, in which the working-class shift to support for parties whose economic policies are left of centre. These parties also tend to have slightly less hawkish policies towards the Palestinians.
However, the overall lesson of these elections is that most Israelis want to forget, or ignore, the Palestinian people and their oppression, and to turn inwards and address the country's huge economic and social problems.
This could provide an opportunity for socialists to mobilise around both issues, and to explain now the social problems are integrally linked to the occupation, and ultimately to the whole Zionist colonial project.
It remains to be seen whether the forces exist which can rise to this challenge. Previous experience, as documented in these pages over many years, is not encouraging.