The Levanter (12 page)

That said, however, I
am prepared to go on record as believing most of Michael Howell’s account of his part in the Ghaled affair. The situation in which he found himself was an appalling one. It is easy to say, as have his critics, that in reacting to it he should have thought less of his own safety and business interests and more of his higher responsibilities, but to do so is to miss the point. With even less knowledge of Ghaled’s plans and intentions than I had at that time, he did what he believed he had to do. To accuse him of irresponsibility is unfair; he did not then know what his responsibilities were. When he eventually did know he assumed them. At no time did he behave stupidly, and in the end he showed courage.

Those who condemn Mr. Howell and question his good faith were never in his shoes and don’t understand what he was up against. They have never met Salah Ghaled.

I did meet him, and it wasn’t an enjoyable experience.

I don’t usually take strong likes or dislikes to the persons I interview. I am not there to defend or prosecute, but to gather information and, hopefully, insights, which I can pass on to others. But Ghaled I actively disliked.

I am not going to quote the whole of my interview with him - a lot that he said was standard guerrilla radio hate stuff - but this edited version contains the essentials. I am also giving, from notes made at the time, accounts of my
subsequent conversations with Miss Hammad and Frank Edwards. They have a bearing both on Ghaled’s thought processes and on my estimate at that time of his intentions.

The interview began easily enough with some questions about Ghaled’s early life and career as a guerrilla leader. They were not important, and I already knew the answers, but I don’t like microphones and tape recorders when interviewing; they tend to have an inhibiting effect. When I am obliged to use them, I find that a series of simple, easily answered questions at the beginning helps the subject to forget the microphone and tape. After this preparatory work I went on: “Mr. Ghaled, you seem to have devoted all your adult life to fighting on the Palestinian side in the Arab-Israeli conflict’’

The Arab-Zionist conflict, yes.”

“Most of the fighting, on your part, having been with guerrilla forces.”

“Not all, but most, yes.”

“Even when the armies of the Arab states, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, have not been engaged, you have continued to fight?”

“Yes.”

“Even when there has been peace?”

“There has never been a peace between the Arab states and the Zionists.”

“There have been peaceful periods, surely, prolonged cease-fires when things were peaceable enough for, say, Jordanian farmers to cross the border and sell their produce in Israel?”

He smiled faintly at my innocence. “Certainly there have been such periods. You speak of Jordanian farmers selling produce in so-called Israel. Let me tell you that there was a time when I used to cross the border that way myself. But one in five of the grapefruit that my donkeys carried to market had grenades in them. Peace at any price, Mr. Prescott, was never acceptable to us Palestinians. With or without our allies in the Arab states, we the
fedayeen
have always fought on.”

“But what do you think you have accomplished b
y
doing so, Mr. Ghaled? To put the question another way, what do you consider has been the main achievement of the guerrilla, the
fedayeen
movement?”

“It has ensured that the Palestinian cause has been neither lost nor conveniently forgotten.”

“You say the Palestinian cause. I want there to be no misunderstanding. What, in your particular view,
is
the Palestinian cause?”

“I have no particular view, Mr. Prescott. My view, in that respect, is the same as Yasir Arafat’s or Dr. George Habash’s or Kemal Adwan’s - and Kemal, an Al Fatah man, is on the Central Committee of the PLO. We may disagree about means, but the end, our ultimate
aim,
is common ground.”

He went on to mention the names of other former colleagues in Al Fatah and the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine with whom he shared this common ground. Had I not seen the bureau files so recently I would never have guessed that these were the men he had been denouncing as “running dogs”. “We ask only for justice,” he concluded proudly.

“Could you be more specific, Mr. Ghaled? What justice?”

“First, the destruction of the Zionist state. Note, please, that I do not ask for destruction of the Jews, only the destruction or dismemberment of the artificially created Zionist state. Second, the return of all Palestinian refugees to their lost lands and possessions. Third, the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state. Nothing less.”

“All or nothing, Mr. Ghaled?”

“Less than all would amount to nothing.”

“But hasn’t the history of the past twenty-three years shown this uncompromising, all-or-nothing demand to be self-defeating?”

There was some trouble over translating the phrase “self-defeating”. I was asked to put the question differently.

“As far as the Palestinian cause is concerned,” I said, “hasn’t the all-or-nothing policy failed? The all that it has achieved has been Israeli unity. The Israeli state that might once have been contained has instead been enlarged. The Palestinian cause may not be forgotten, Mr. Ghaled, but, as you present and define it, do you not think that it may reasonably be considered lost?”

“Considered lost by whom, Mr. Prescott? The United States government?” Jocular.

“I don’t speak for the United States government, Mr. Ghaled. I am merely trying to get your thoughts on the realities of the situation. Do you really believe that the destruction or dismemberment of the State of Israel, even if it were desirable, is any longer possible without a third and final world war?”

“Why should it not be possible, Mr. Prescott?” I could tell by his expression as he went on that there were more jokes on the way. “The West, and particularly the United States, is always expressing its wish to be helpful in resolving what it calls the Middle East conflict. Excellent. We accept. Let the United States send all the ships of its mighty Sixth Fleet to the ports of Haifa, Acre, Tel Aviv-Yafo and Ashdod. Then let them embark their Zionist dependents, all three million of them, and sail away forever. Where to, you ask? I
hear that there are plenty of wide-open spaces in Texas and New Mexico that could accommodate these people. Of course, it is possible that the present owners of those spaces may object to three million Zionists taking possession of their lands. Such unreasonable persons will naturally have to be driven out and accommodated elsewhere. But this difficulty can be overcome. I am sure that UNWRA will be glad to build refugee camps for the dispossessed in the Arizona desert.”

Miss Hammad’s translation of this speech was accompanied by snickers.

“I am sure,” I replied, “that Mr. Ghaled’s suggestions would impress and entertain a junior college debating society. However, I am seeking information. I was asking if, as one of those Arabs who fought the Israelis in the ‘48 war and lost, and who has remained on the losing side ever since, Mr. Ghaled may not sometimes have begun to suspect that Israel is here to stay.”

I knew that she didn’t translate the whole of that because of his answer.

“In ‘48 there was no proper unity among the Arab States. If there had been, the Jews would have been driven into the sea.”

I thought of asking him about ‘56 and ‘67 but decided to skip it. He had given me the lead I wanted.

“Then if we may return to the matter of the Palestinian guerrilla movement and its success in keeping the Palestinian cause from becoming lost or forgotten. Has unity between different sections of the movement been a factor in that success?”

He saw at once what I was getting at, of course, and sidestepped.

“The operations of conventional forces and those of commandos are differently conceived, of a different quantity, and hence qualitatively different. Unity of strategic command among allied states fighting a full-scale war is essential. In a commando struggle there must be unity of purpose, of course, but individual leaders may, and should, decide how best to contribute to the advancement of that purpose.”

“There have been as many Arab casualties as a result of the guerrilla fighting in Jordan and Lebanon as there were Israeli casualties in the full-scale Six-Day War. More perhaps. You have attributed these Arab losses to betrayals of the Palestinian cause. The Great Betrayal and the Second Betrayal you call them. But isn’t betrayal in this case just another word for disunity?”

“Why play with words, Mr. Prescott? A moment ago you were asking me to speak of reality. That I am ready to do.”

“Very well. Has the Palestinian Action Force so far played a unifying or a disunifying role in the Struggle?”

“As I have already said, we Palestinian militants share a common purpose. Our methods of achieving it may differ. That is all.”

“You agree about the ends but differ about the means. I see. Then may we discuss the merits of some of these means?”

“We may discuss anything.”

“There have been bombs planted in European civilian airliners which have killed many persons who have never been near Israel. There have been attacks on airliners and hijacking which have also led to civilian loss of life.”

“The work of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.”

“So I understand. But do you approve of these means?”

“They would not be my means, but I do not disapprove.”

“You approve of these murders of airline passengers, of innocent bystanders?”

“While we in Palestine fight for justice, no bystander is innocent.”

I could tell by the gusto with which Miss Hammad translated this that she thoroughly approved and thought the statement important.

“How would you describe your favourite means, Mr. Ghaled?”

“My policy is to defeat the enemy closer to home.”

“Are you referring now to the PAF purification campaign?”

“That has been a transitional campaign, a necessary housecleaning carried out in the interests of all in the movement.”

“You have been called an extortionist, Mr. Ghaled. How do you respond to such charges?”

“With contempt and silence. Those persons who make such charges know nothing of my plans.”

“Plans for defeating the enemy closer to home?”

“I have said so.”

“But
which
enemy, Mr. Ghaled? The Jordanian government, the PLO Central Committee?”

“The PAF has only one enemy, the Zionist state. I have said so repeatedly.”

“And you intend to destroy it?”

“Defeat it.”

“You were once quoted, Mr. Ghaled, as saying that when the British set out to implement the Balfour Declaration in Palestine, they were counting on a miracle. Do you not think that a similar charge might now be made against you?”

“I count on men and high explosives, not miracles.”

“But it is against Israel that the PAF intends to move?”

“It is. I remind you that we are the Palestinian
Action
Force. Action, Mr. Prescott, is what we intend.”

“When are we likely to see it, Mr. Ghaled?”

“Surely you do not expect me to tell you our plans so that they may be published.”

“Naturally not. But while you said that the methods used by the Popular Front would not be yours, you would not deny that their exploits have a spectacular quality. From your point of view they would be valuable in that they reminded the world of the Palestinian cause. I was wondering if your plans for action are likely to provide similar reminders.”

“I said that we intend to defeat the Zionists, Mr. Prescott. Did that not answer your question?”

At that moment Miss Hammad said that she had to change the tape. I almost told her not to trouble, that I had had enough. I didn’t, because I was fairly sure that we had not been talking for anything like half an hour, and that she was changing the tape simply in order to interrupt a line of questioning and distract me from it.

When the tape had been changed I went on:

“Mr. Ghaled, when you said that the PAF intended to defeat the Zionist state, Israel, I assumed, I think with reason, that you were speaking figuratively. Was I wrong in that assumption?”

“Quite wrong.”

“You would not object to my quoting you on that?”

“Not in the least.”

“I do not ask for precise figures, naturally, but may I know the approximate strength of the PAF?”

“Not at this time.”

“Not even an approximate figure, Mr. Ghaled? Over one thousand men? Under one thousand?” According to Frank Edwards it was probably less than three hundred.

“Not at this time.”

“What about allies?”

“They will come with success.”

“When the defeat of Israel is seen to be imminent?”

“When the manner in which it may be destroyed is seen and understood.”

“I see.”

“Give me a fulcrum and I will move the world. Have you not heard that expression, Mr. Prescott?” He was staring at me earnestly.

“I believe that a lever is necessary as well as a fulcrum.”

“Be in no doubt. We have our lever.” He paused. “Have you ever seen a man’s house and his possessions in it dynamited before his eyes, Mr. Prescott?”

“I have seen lots of bad things happen to people’s possessions in war areas, and worse things to the people themselves.”

“I am not talking of war areas, Mr. Prescott, but areas of so-called peace. One night two months ago, in an Arab village near Haifa, a man was sleeping when there was a knock on his door. He went and opened the door. Outside stood his brother whom he had not seen for three years. The brother was one of my men who had crossed the border secretly. He asked for shelter for the night. That is all he asked, a place to sleep, no more. He was refused. The brother, whose house it was, stood in fear of the Zionist police. Trembling, he told his brother to go away, and the brother, understanding his fear, left without crossing the threshold. Sad, was it not?”

“Very.”

“But now what happens? The brother in the house has a duty under the Zionist law to go to the police and report the incident, report that his brother who is with the
fedayeen
has been there, and is in the area, in order that he may be searched for and captured. This he cannot bring himself to do to one of his own blood, so he commits the offense of remaining silent, But a neighbour has seen and heard what has happened and the neighbour goes to the police. The brother who remained silent is arrested and condemned for harbouring and assisting one of those who fight for freedom. The sentence is that his house shall be destroyed, and he is led out with his wife and children to watch the sentence being carried out. The Zionist soldiers come then and place the dynamite charges. Then, before his eyes and those of his family, everything he possesses is destroyed. What do you think of that proceeding, Mr. Prescott?”