In March the Israeli Defence Force stormed Jericho prison seizing a number of prisoners -including Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) leader Ahmed Sa'adat. PIERS MOSTYN spoke to DANIEL MACHOVER, London-based lawyer for Sa'adat about British involvement in the murky background to this affair and in the obstruction of an attempt, initiated by his firm, to execute an arrest warrant on an Israeli general at Heathrow airport last year. GENERAL Doron Almog was involved in a number of alleged grave breaches of the Geneva Convention - including the wanton destruction of 59 houses in Rafah refugee camp in January 2002 and the killing of many innocent civilians in July that year when a one ton bomb was dropped on Gaza city. These revelations call for closer attention to be paid to Britain's role in propping up the SR: What's the background to the storming of the prison? DM: An agreement was brokered by the US and UK governments to break the siege of the presidential compound in Ramallah in 2002.
The Israelis purportedly started the siege because lney learnt that SiX Palestinian suspects were being detained in the prison part of the compound by the Palestinian Authority (PA). They were: Fuad Shubaki, who had been arrested by the PA in connection with an arms shipment, and five others. The rest were all members of the PFLP and included PFLP leader Ahmed Sa'adat and also the head of their military wing.
When the siege began, President Arafat ordered a "trial" to take place. A judge was wheeled in and a very hasty and very dubious trial occurred of four of the PFLP members including
Ine whole affair. killing of the former leader of the PFLP (our client's predecessor, Abu Ali Mustafa in the centre of Ramallah by the Israelis.
The judge convicted these four Palestinian members and the Israelis still wouldn't lift the siege. The Israelis were asked by the PA for any evidence they had against Ahmed Sa'adat regarding his involvement. There wasn't any. Even under this rather dubious trial, there wasn't sufficient evidence for the Palestinian prosecuting authority to bring Mr Sa'adat to trial. view, in the transportation, supervision of their ongoing rights - a person who was SR: Is it right that a Palestinian DM: On June 3 2002 an High Court was made, in
That was obviously Further human rights abuses would take place. The British fully knew that. It's not collusion; it's just washing their hands of the with that ОТОЕТ ПТОИСЯ threats and the invocation of this original agreement. And we believe that Mr Sa'adat was given a clear indication that if there was
order Icy alls his release from the Palestinian High Court, that would be respected.
We were in the brocess having just been instructed a week betore these events oi preparing representations to the British government to try and arrange for them to suspend the usual monitoring arrangements by allowreporting his departure to rights. It would have put on March 8 following earlier PA, the UK and US under
agreemenl allalecuculs. Hamas putative Palestinian Authority was elected, it had said that it would release these detainees. The Israelis immediately made it clear that they would not allow them simply to be released. They would either kill them or detain them themselves.
Hamas correctly realised that, certainly in the case of two that have served their sentence, Mr Sa'adat and arguably Mr Shubaki under Palestinian law there was no actual basis for their that. They took, in our view, a totally correct view of their obligations under local law that they shouldn't really be detaining these people any In practical terms, [the British] say they did not give the Israelis prior notifi cation. We know - whatever the politicians meaning of "prior" - that they told the Israelis as they left Jericho gaol.
They informed the PA and Israel of their departure. It didn't really that they didn't give them any more sophisticated prior notification because the March 8 letter was given to the Israelis.
Under the agreement they had to tell the Israelis about the March 8 letter and of COUSC deployed forces. They were probably getting ready to deploy forces well before then because of their very real threat to do something if Hamas suddenly released these people.
Our instructions are the monitors told the individual prisoners, not the PA, that they were going for a walk. SR: The widespread anger in the Palestinian community and the Arab world as to British collusion had some basis? DM: I think it certainly did have a lot of basis, although I wouldn't call it "collusion".
I would call it an involvement in an arbitrary detention that turned sour and which the Israelis were going to make sure ended badly for the Palestinians involved, rather than in their emancipation. Further human rights abuses would take place. The British fully knew that.
It's not collusion; it's just washing their hands of the whole affair. I don't think that either of them is a particularly honourable or legal position for the British government to have adopted, having involved themselves in the situation. SR: Was Sa'adat ever actually charged by the Palestinians? DM: No SR: have the Israelis charged him yet? DM: No. He is in a precharge procedure that could last as long as 180 days, depending on choices being made now. SR: Is he going to have much confidence in the fairness of any proceedings? DM: No. Again look at the Israeli Foreign Affairs website. They have repeatedly called all of them, including him, "murderers", "murdering terrorists", without any qualification. For the state that's going to prosecute him to repeatedly label him as such, gives him no confidence that a judge is not going to feel the enormous pressure of the executive to convict.
page 13 of the scan
Palestinian militants set fire to a vehicle at the British Council in Gaza City as supporters of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine take to the streets in Gaza City TUna