No smoking gun

On Tuesday we attended a concert performed by the Israel Kibbutz Orchestra at the Kimeron concert hall in Beit Shean. While we waited for the conductor Yaron Gotfried to enter from the wings I recalled that a few hundred metres from the Kimeron another theatre has been given a new lease of life.

After centuries of neglect ancient Beit Shean also known as Scythopolis has been restored to some of its former glory. Now it is part of the Beit Shean national park, one of Israel’s better known archaeological sites.

Weather permitting the Roman open air theatre is used for a variety of cultural performances.

Rabbis of the Roman-Byzantine era proscribed visiting “theatres, circuses (amphitheatres) and stadiums.” The need to declare Roman cultural, sports and leisure facilities “out-of-bounds" indicates that Jews in Beit Shean as elsewhere in the Roman Empire indulged in these forbidden activities. Admittedly the ancient theatre was used mainly for vaudeville - like light entertainment and less for presenting the classical dramas of Rome and Greece.

For almost a month now we have been watching a heightening drama, which is beginning to look like a cheap vaudeville show. At first it was reminiscent of the once popular whodunits. The “Death in Dubai” I wrote about three weeks ago could easily have been a plot for an Agatha Christie classic.

Dubai’s chief of police is increasingly convinced that a Mossad hit team “took out” Mahmoud al Mabhouh. In fact he has promised to provide indisputable evidence, a veritable “smoking gun” to support his claim. In the meantime all he has done is add more suspects to the ever-growing list of assassins and accomplices.

None of the faces in the passport photographs supplied by the Dubai police department fits my description of a licensed-to-kill agent. They all look like regular holiday makers and business people who happen to have been caught on the local candid camera programme. I couldn't find a single 007 type in the 26 strong crowd of suspected evildoers.

If the Mossad or any other "agency" wanted to kill Mahmoud al Mabhouh why would it send so many people to do the job?

I wanted to forget the event and write about Purim and my grandchildren’s costumes. Instead we are still discussing disguises and forged passports.

The plot seems to be thickening and is already more intricate than the pattern of the tablecloth my wife is embroidering.

“People are blabbering too much,” complained Knesset member and former security service head Gidon Ezra. “This story might sell papers, but I think we need to give it time to pass and allow people to forget about it.” Echoing the old adage “A closed mouth gathers no feet.”

Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee chairman Tzahi Hanegbi of Kadima said that under no circumstances would his committee discuss the affair.
Kadima MK Nachman Shai said the reason Netanyahu was not facing criticism was that there was a consensus in Israeli society that assassinations of terrorist leaders were necessary and that the Mossad was a sacred cow.
Writer Judith Miller quoted an unnamed Israeli source for her recent article on the Dubai assassination which appeared in Tablet Magazine. Using unnamed sources is often cause for concern, reason to doubt their reliability. However Miller herself is thorough and reliable. What’s more, reliable Israeli sources are unlikely to expose themselves, especially now.

Judith Miller heard from her source confirmation of reports of an early failed attempt to assassinate Mabhouh.

Some time last summer Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was hospitalised in Dubai for unspecified “treatment.” In fact, he was recovering from an attempt by the Mossad to poison his food during an earlier visit to Lebanon..

Though he apparently did not realise it, Mabhouh was being closely watched. Members of what is now estimated to have been an 18-person Mossad assassination squad were tracking his every move, from his home in Damascus to his hospital room in Dubai. Members of the team infiltrated the hospital and were prepared to assassinate him but the attempt was called off due to what was described as a “glitch.”

A few months later, Mabhouh was in Dubai again, en route to yet another prospective purchase of weapons for Hamas. Once again, he was not alone. Throughout his brief stay in Dubai and when he boarded his plane for China, a member of a Mossad assassination squad was following him, reporting on where he went in China, whom he met and contacted, and where he stayed, dined, and slept.

Ms. Miller referring to her source says that the near-miss in the Dubai hospital and the trip to China were only two incidents in an intense, protracted surveillance effort that preceded the Mossad’s meticulously planned assassination on January 19^th.

This conclusion contradicts all the negative analysts who claim the Dubai assassination was less than perfect.

A lead article in The Economist last week entitled “A time to kill,” was a little premature in drawing conclusions. “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.”

If indeed the Mossad is responsible for the assassination it’s reasonable to assume that it was very well informed about Dubai.

Advance knowledge of the security cameras, the local police and the possible outcome were taken into account.

Hugh Tomlinson reporting for the Sunday Times in Dubai had plenty of details to add, mostly conclusions drawn from an analysis of the CCTV footage and the local chief of police’s statements. Plenty of speculative conclusions and few hard facts.

The Dubai chief of police Lt. Gen. Khalfan Tamim said several of the assassination team members had used their passports in Dubai at least twice before. I wonder why he failed to identify them then.

“Modern technology makes killing easier—but harder to get away with.

Only a decade ago the assassins who killed Mahmoud al-Mabhouh would have disappeared into oblivion. Now that is much harder, and not merely for the obvious reason that lenses are ubiquitous. Modern cameras capture more than blurred images: they record the precise bone structure of people’s faces. Digitised and interpreted by an algorithm, this information is fed to police computers all over the world.” Claims the author of a lead article (“Hitmen old and new”) in The Economist. He/she goes on to describe how the net is closing around old-fashioned secret-service methods. Biometric passports are already the norm in most European countries. Their chips hold easily checkable data such as retina scans, which are both unique and impossible to falsify. The thought of an easily disproved false identity fills spymasters with horror.

Assuming the Mossad was responsible for Mabhouh’s death, so far an unproven assumption, what’s the damage?

“Nothing to lose sleep over,” says Jonathan Spyer of The Jerusalem Post. “The warnings of major diplomatic fallout are probably overblown . While the British government (and the governments of France and Ireland ( + Australia), whose passports were also reportedly used in the operation) will be understandably angry, past experience shows that disputes in this area tend to be treated as belonging to the special, sealed-off category of ‘national security.’ Where states have good reasons to maintain healthy ties with one another, such incidents are rarely allowed to muddy the waters for long.”

“Mossad ties are vital for the security of Britain.” Claims Michael Evans: in the

Sunday Times

“Diplomatic outrage is one thing, but severing ties with Mossad to punish Israel’s secret service for using British passports for an assassination would be to Britain’s detriment.

The intelligence world is dirty and grey, and Britain, despite its attempts to be perceived as a moral force, has to play with the dirtiest to ensure that it can share information that is so crucial to maintaining a handle on enemies and potential enemies.” Should we take that as a compliment?

Let’s return to the concert at the Kimeron hall. Yaron Gotfried was the conductor and pianist in the performance of Mozart’s piano concerto No. 23. The rest of the programme comprised Mendelssohn’s concertante piece for two clarinets and the lesser known composition – Rameau’s Dance Suite, "The Courtly Indies", performed with original choreography by Renana Raz.

Chag Purim Sameach

Beni 25^th of February, 2010.

Pictures at an exhibition

The Museum of Art at Ein Harod is an anomaly! It's the third largest art museum in Israel, yet notwithstanding its size it is situated off the beaten track, far from the main population centres.

The museum certainly isn't an outsize provincial community art corner In fact from the start it was planned to be an art centre, a tangible expression of cultural decentralisation.

Once Ein Harod was a remote far-flung rural community, but today improved highways have made it easily accessible, barely an eighty minute drive from Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. What's more, if you live in Haifa and its environs it takes less than an hour to reach the Museum. The museum's director Galia Bar Or is more of a trend setter than a trend follower. She has a keen eye and an intuitive "feeling” for young talented artists. Galia has also "revived" long forgotten artists rejected by the mainstream galleries.

Currently on display at the museum is an exhibition of contemporary Israeli art, mostly from a private collection..

In addition the museum is active in aiding smaller lesser known museums and galleries. One of these museums, the Um al Fahm art gallery has enjoyed preferential support and guidance. In an e-mail sent to a wide gallery-goers public Galia wrote about the special bond that has been forged between the Um al Fahm art gallery and the museum at Ein Harod. If you’re travelling north Galia recommends a stopover at Um al Fahm to visit the gallery.

These days most people travelling north will choose route 65 that runs through Wadi Ara past Um al Fahm and continues to the Jezreel Valley.

However, the clash between the police and Arab rioters in September 2000 was a traumatic event in Arab –Jewish relations in this country. Some Israeli Jews avoided the Wadi Ara route preferring to travel by an alternative pass further north. Commuters who did drive along route 65 through Wadi Ara didn't stop along the way. It was an unwritten and undeclared popular boycott. Drive but don't buy. With the passage of time the cognizant boycott has all but disappeared, however few people break their journey in Wadi Ara when they travel north.

Approximately 45,000 people live in Um al Fahm. In 1948 its population numbered 4,500, most of them farmers. The village was founded in the thirteenth century maybe during the Mameluke conquest. Originally the villagers were charcoal burners. Eventually they exhausted the supply of wood they cut from the native bush in the hills above the wadi, so the charcoal burners turned to farming. Today more and more Wadi Ara district residents are employed in construction work. Some of them are independent contractors.

In 1949 at the end of the War of Independence 15 villages along Wadi Ara held by the Arab Legion forces were ceded to Israel in an exchange of territories formulated in the General Armistice Agreement.

During a visit to London last week Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon referred to Wadi Ara in an interview he gave to the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat

Ayalon suggested reversing the 1949 agreement by returning the Wadi Ara villages to the "future Palestinian state." In exchange Ayalon proposed that the Palestinians relinquish their claim to the land in the West Bank where Israelis have settled.

"Arab Israelis say they are proud of being Palestinians. So they have nothing to lose if they decide to go and live within a Palestinian state," Ayalon said in the interview.

In a separate statement fellow Knesset member Moshe Matalon also from (Yisrael Beiteinu) the party that forms the extreme right flank of Netanyahu's coalition government, added the following moral support:

"The words of Deputy Minister Ayalon expressed clearly the deepest desire of most citizens, even those who do not admit it."

Not quite, at least according to a survey conducted last year by the Israel Democracy Institute. The findings of the survey presented to President Shimon Peres were that,
“53% of the Jewish public supports encouraging Arabs to emigrate from Israel. 77% of immigrants from the former Soviet Union support this idea, compared with 47% of the veteran public."

I wonder what would be the results of a like survey regarding Muslim immigrants if it were conducted in some European countries.

Four years ago Avigdor Lieberman made a less generous offer. Lieberman who served then as Minister of “Strategic Affairs” in Ehud Olmert’s coalition government repeatedly called for expelling all Arabs and Palestinians from the country by transferring them to Jordan and other Arab states. By comparison Ayalon's land swap proposal “seems meek.”

Understandably Arab Knesset member, Dr.Ahmed Tibi, was incensed by Danny Ayalon’s “repatriation” proposal. “Arabs are the natives of this country and are not immigrants.” said Dr. Tibi and added,

“If they want to expel us, I tell them, the people who came here last should leave first.” Of course Lieberman doesn’t subscribe to the LIFO principle.

It’s reasonable to suppose that Ayalon’s proposal is no more than a pipe dream.

At this juncture permit me another pipe-dream, namely “ A land without a people for a people without a land.”

Although usually assumed to have been a Zionist slogan, the phrase was in fact coined by a Christian Restorationist clergyman in 1843 and it continued to be fairly widely used for almost a century by Christian Restorationists.

In the nineteenth and early twentieth century period in which this phrase was in common use, the Arab inhabitants of Palestine did not in their view constitute a coherent national group, "a people", and, therefore, Christian Restorationists argued that the "land of Israel" should be given to the Jewish people.

A number of Zionist leaders made use of the phrase; however it never came into widespread use among Jewish Zionists.

In “Innocents Abroad” Mark Twain mentions the biblical scenes depicted in copper plate illustrations hung on the walls of his parents’ home. The harsh reality he encountered on his Holy Land visit in 1869 dispelled any illusions he had about this land “flowing with milk and honey.” Fortunately he lived long enough to witness the first stages of the rebirth of the Jewish nation. Not a return to the copper plate images but a new vibrant renaissance aware of the past while building for the future.

The “rogues gallery” repeatedly displayed by the Dubai police and relayed to nearly every news media outlet has aroused considerable speculation regarding the true identity of the assassins.

Jerusalem based correspondent for the New York Times Isabel Keshner

wrote, ”Officially, Israel has neither confirmed nor denied involvement in the case, as is customary in delicate matters of intelligence and national security. But since the news of the assassination broke last month, Israel has unofficially made the story its own, with newspapers blaring congratulatory headlines and government ministers praising the Mossad’s director.”

Surprisingly the Mossad received praise from a most unexpected quarter.

Al-Ahram, the state-run Egyptian newspaper,published an article last week praising Meir Dagan, the head of the Israeli Mossad.

The slightly bizarre article -- written by Ashraf Abu al-Hawl, the former head of Al-Ahram's Gaza bureau -- called Dagan the "Superman" of Israel. It commends him for working to undermine Iran's nuclear programme, and for opposing Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas and the Syrian government.

As more information about the assassination became available this week , especially the footage taken by the Dubai surveillance cameras, it appears that that the operation lacked certain “professional attributes.” The disguises were amateurish and the fake passports used by the assassins caused embarrassment to Britain, Ireland, maybe France and certainly Israel.

The Dubai police is almost 100% sure that the Mossad assassinated Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, So far no one in Israel has stated unequivocally that the Mossad “made the hit.” The only exception I know of is journalist Amir Oren who called on Meir Dagan to resign.

I’ve read some weird and wonderful theories about the assassination's perpetrators. All of them speculative, none of them based on reputable information. Here are a few:

It was carried by an organisation with a good motive for killing Mabhouh and

was made to look like a Mossad assassination. However, the flaws revealed by the surveillance cameras indicate that it was either a bad Mossad assassination or an amateurish copycat job.

At the other end of the scale let’s consider the possibility that it really was a Mossad assassination and was purposely flawed to make it appear that another organisation was responsible for the kill.

The bottom line is that Mahmoud al-Mabhouh is dead and really that’s all that matters.

Have a nice weekend.

Beni 18^th of February, 2010.

Options

Prime Minister Netanyahu has been busy again mopping up after his ministers. This time it was an inadvertent remark made by Minister of Defence Ehud Barak and a sabre-rattling follow-up contributed by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Judging by Lieberman's bellicose remarks we are about to go to war. His outburst provoked an equally belligerent response on the Syrian side. The exchange of threats started on Monday last week when Minister of Defence Ehud Barak warned in a briefing to senior IDF officers, that “the absence of a peace settlement with Syria, was liable to lead to a confrontation and could spark off an all-out, regional war.” Israelis understood Barak’s remark as a plea for the Israeli government to start new peace negotiations with Syria, but the Syrians apparently interpreted it as warmongering. Syria's Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem was quick to respond - "Israel should not test Syria's determination. Israel knows that war will move to the Israeli cities." Lieberman looking more like a bar bouncer than a senior cabinet minister (actually he was a bar bouncer in his youth) replied without consulting the prime minister or the minister of defence. He threatened to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and put an end to the Assad dynasty if the wily Syrian should contemplate attacking Israel directly or by proxy.
By midweek both Barak and Netanyahu were anxious to reassure the Syrians that Israel is not mobilising for war. Barak called on Assad to "return to the negotiating table, instead of trading harsh words." Lieberman and Netanyahu issued a reassuring joint statement stating,
"We pursue peace and negotiations with Syria, without preconditions, while Israel will continue to act with force and determination against any threats."
In retrospect it appears that Walid al-Moallem chose to misunderstand Barak's badly worded statement. The Syrian minister and his advisors are familiar with the inner machinations of Israel's coalition government. They are also well aware that the exchange of threats is simply empty rhetoric. Avigdor Lieberman certainly knew that a firm well worded reply to Moallem would have been in keeping with diplomatic protocol and would have placated both sides. Instead he chose to ratchet up the exchange of verbal volleys obviously currying favour with Israelis who appreciate a strong plain-talking leader. I doubt if many people were impressed by Lieberman’s intimidating antics and by the end of the week the topic was old news. War wasn't imminent and peace was as elusive and distant as ever.
Journalist Akiva Eldar advises against the "illusion of the 'Syria first' option. Namely, the Israeli tendency to negotiate a peace settlement one track at a time. In an article he wrote for Haaretz Eldar reminds us that, "Three prime ministers - Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak - encouraged Bill Clinton to bypass Yasser Arafat and try his luck with Hafez Assad. Netanyahu, too, tried his luck." "Switching tracks" claims Eldar is counterproductive instead he advocates negotiating with the Palestinians and the Syrians separately on parallel tracks.
Arab Affairs analyst Dr. Guy Bechor recommends a "back to the drawing board" approach.
In an article he wrote for Yediot Ahronot Bechor says, "The time has come to bring Jordan too into the equation, just like Egypt has been brought into the Gaza equation." Bechor reminds his readers that after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza the Egyptians were left with the responsibility for the Gaza-Egyptian border and the Rafah border crossing. However, as long as Israel controls the Allenby bridge border crossing and the border between the West Bank and Jordan the Jordanians are simply interested onlookers. "Israel did Jordan a favour in 1967 when it detached it from the Palestinian problem, just like it did the Egyptians a favour by detaching them from Gaza. " Claims Bechor and warns,” A tiny Palestinian state will not be viable, unless it has a direct and clear link to Jordan, which is home to a solid Palestinian majority and where the heir to the throne himself is half-Palestinian. "
Bechor's Jordanian linkage concept certainly arouses a feeling of déjà vu. A few weeks ago Giora Eiland, former head of Israel’s National Security Council, presented a more comprehensive outline of a similar idea, namely, the latest reincarnation of the “Jordanian Option.” The origins of the Jordanian Option can be traced to the contacts between the Jewish Agency (the official link between the Jews in Palestine and the British mandatory authority) and King Abdullah I of Transjordan. In 1947 these contacts culminated in a secret agreement to partition Palestine between the Jewish state and Transjordan (later Jordan). After the War of Independence Israeli leaders regarded the survival of the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan as essential to Israel’s security. After Israel captured the West Bank in the Six Day War Labour Party leaders opposed the creation of a Palestinian state and strove, unsuccessfully, for a territorial compromise with Jordan. The Jordanian Option ceased to be Israel's official policy following the rise to power of the Likud Party in 1977. Later, whether in opposition or as the Likud's coalition partner, the Labour Party continued to advocate the Jordanian Option. By cutting the links between Jordan and the West Bank in July 1988, Jordan's King Hussein announced, in effect, that a Jordanian Option no longer exists.
Giora Eiland’s concept was presented in a monograph called "Regional Alternatives to the Two-State Solution," released last month by Bar-Ilan University's Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies The embryo of the present concept appeared in an article he wrote for MESH (Middle East Strategy at Harvard) in April 2008 entitled “Back to the Jordanian Option,” Eiland argued that an Israeli-Palestinian final status agreement is “unfeasible in the foreseeable future.” He suggested reshuffling the cards and try to think about other solutions as well.
“One of them is a return to the Jordanian Option. The Jordanians won’t admit this publicly, yet a Palestinian state in the West Bank is the worst solution for them. They too know that within a short period of time such a state will be ruled by Hamas. The moment Jordan—which has a Palestinian majority as well as powerful Muslim Brotherhood opposition—shares a border with a Hamas state, the Hashemite regime will face immediate danger.” In his regional alternatives outlined in the Bar-Ilan pamphlet Giora Eiland explains, ”What is needed is a completely new way of looking at possible solutions, widening the lens to come up with fresh ideas beyond the idea of a two-state solution. The first option is what could be called the US of Jordan, a variation on the old Palestinian-Jordanian federation theme. The second option envisions a Palestinian state, but one with territory that would be enhanced by 720 km2. given by Egypt, which would in turn be compensated by a similar amount of land taken from the Negev.” Referring to the two-state solution he says, "It is hard to believe that the diplomatic effort that failed in 2000 will succeed in 2010, when most of the elements in the equation have changed for the worse.” According to Eiland US administrations have consistently claimed that: The Palestinians aspire to attain independence based on the 1967 borders. The gap between the sides' positions is small and bridgeable. ·Moderate Arab states are interested in ending the conflict and therefore will assist in its solution. The end of the conflict will bring about stability. Resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is vital to obtaining Arab assistance in combating the Iranian threat. There is currently an opportunity to resolve the conflict and it must not be squandered. There is only one solution to the conflict, and that is the solution of two states with the 1967 border between them. As an alternative to becoming locked into the two-state mindset, Eiland proposes a Jordanian-Palestinian federation whereby Gaza and the West Bank would be states in a Jordanian kingdom, much like Pennsylvania and New York are American states. "They will have full independence on domestic issues as well as a budget, governmental institutions, laws, a police force, and symbols of independence, but similar to Pennsylvania or New Jersey they will not have responsibility for two issues: foreign policy and military forces. Those two areas, exactly as in the United States, will remain the responsibility of the 'federal' government in Amman." Eiland says the benefits of this proposal to the Palestinians are enormous. First and foremost it would ensure that an independent Palestinian state would not be ruled by Hamas. In addition, he writes, "the Palestinians also understand that under a two-state alternative, they will become citizens of a tiny state. Such a small state is not viable and will have security limitations (for example, conceding sovereignty over its airspace). It is preferable to be equal citizens in a large, respected country where the Palestinians will form the demographic majority." Jordan would benefit, he continues, because the way to prevent instability in Jordan, which would be fuelled by a future Hamas regime in the West Bank, is through Jordanian military control over this territory. And Israel would gain, he says, because it is more likely to get the security it desires if the territories are incorporated into a greater Jordanian state, rather than if a new - and most likely failed - mini-state is created on its doorstep. Eiland's other model, based on territorial exchange, calls for Egypt to transfer some 720 km2. of land - including 24 km. along the Mediterranean coast toward El-Arish - to the Palestinians, in order to allow them to build a million-plus city and a sustainable port and airport. Egypt would be compensated by an equal amount of land taken from the Negev, and a tunnel at Israel's southern tip from Egypt to Jordan, which would connect Egypt with the Arab countries to the east. The 720 km2. are equal to 12 percent of the West Bank, which would be the percentage of West Bank territory to remain in Israel's hands. The enlargement of Gaza is necessary if it is to be a viable entity, Eiland argues Egypt would benefit primarily from the 10 km. tunnel to Jordan, which would give it important physical and economic access to the main eastern part of the Middle East, and Jordan would get - via the tunnel - an important passage to the Mediterranean. So far Giora Eiland’s proposal has evoked only a ripple of comment. Maybe it is premature and needs to wait till the two-state solution becomes irrelevant. At the moment Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas is too busy to concern himself with Eiland’s proposals. Earlier this week Israeli TV Channel 10 aired a graphic video showing a Rafik al-Husseini Abbas's chief of staff caught on a hidden camera soliciting sex from a job applicant. The exposé was revealed to Channel 10 by Fahmi Shabaneh formerly in charge of the anti-corruption unit in the Palestinian General Intelligence Service. Shabaneh also disclosed dozens of cases of financial and administrative corruption in Mahmud Abbas’s inner government circle. In an interview with The Jerusalem Post two weeks ago, Shabaneh accused Abbas of failing to act against senior PA and Fatah officials allegedly involved in the theft of public funds and in sex scandals. Shabaneh said that he decided to talk to Channel 10 and The Jerusalem Post after Palestinian, Arab and foreign media organisations refused to interview him out of fear of being “punished” by the PA. Hamas news media did mention the scandal and the Channel 10 late night exposé programme boasted record viewer ratings among Palestinians.

Have a good weekend

Beni 11th of February, 2010. .

Death in Dubai

It was another confusing "who killed Cock Robin" scenario, reminiscent of the old nursery rhyme.

Who killed Cock Robin?" "I," said the Sparrow,
"With my bow and arrow, I killed Cock Robin."
"Who saw him die?" "I," said the Fly,
"With my little eye, I saw him die."

This week's Cock Robin was Mahmoud al-Mabhouh cofounder of the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades. His sudden death in Dubai two weeks ago, at first almost overlooked, has now aroused considerable speculation.

His body was flown to Damascus where he lived in exile for the past twenty years. Contrary to custom Mabhouh was not buried the same day but "kept on ice" for ten days till the cause of death could be determined. The funeral ceremony bore all the familiar trappings of a "Shahid's" last journey on earth.

In the eulogy he gave for the dead terrorist Hamas political bureau chief Khaled Mashaal vowed to avenge Mabhouh's assassination.

Two days before the funeral everyone knew that Mahmoud al-Mabhouh didn't die of natural causes. There were a few unsubstantiated reports that he had been ill with an unspecified bone disease, however most of the news agencies were sure he was assassinated. Who was the sparrow? The Mossad of course, that is if you believe Khaled Mashaal. Well he should know. In 1997 he narrowly escaped a bungled assassination attempt carried out by two Mossad agents in Amman.

BBC Online quoted a Hamas source "who was reticent about how al-Mabhouh met his death, but his family said doctors who had examined his body determined that he had died after receiving a massive electric shock to the head. They also found evidence that he had been strangled.

Blood samples sent to a French laboratory confirmed he was killed by an electric shock."

Reuters quoted Mahmoud al-Mabhouh’s brother, Faiq, who said he had been electrocuted. “The first results of a joint investigation by Hamas and the United Arab Emirates show he was killed by an electrical appliance that was held to his head.” The same agency elaborated further. "Security sources quoted in the Gulf news media said that as well as electrical burns, al-Mabhouh’s body had signs indicating that he was strangled."

According to The National an English-language daily newspaper, printed in Abu Dhabi, al-Mabhouh was electrocuted while walking in the hotel corridor, dragged into his room, and then strangled.

An unnamed Arab source claimed Mabhouh was smothered by a pillow.

On Sunday Dubai Police said that at least seven individuals were involved in the al-Mabhouh murder and would not rule out the possibility that the perpetrators were Mossad agents.

The Sunday Times (London) gave another version of the Hamas leader’s assassination. “The hit squad that assassinated Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in his Dubai hotel room injected him with a drug that induced a heart attack.”

According to the paper quoting unnamed sources in the Middle East.
“A team of assassins broke into al-Mabhouh's room and killed him silently before photographing all the documents in his briefcase and left a 'do not disturb' sign on the door.” The same source added “The 50-year-old Hamas man's body was discovered by staff at the luxury Al Bustan Rotana hotel in the early afternoon on January 20. There were no suspicious signs and local doctors diagnosed a heart attack.
But nine days later, blood samples sent to Paris for analysis showed signs of poison and Hamas announced his death and blamed Israeli agents for the assassination.”

Accounts of al-Mabhouh's murder in the Israeli news media have relied on foreign sources quoting Reuters, BBC, CNN and others as well as a number of foreign newspapers. In keeping with a long standing policy government spokespersons have neither denied nor confirmed the accusations linking the Mossad to al-Mabhouh's timely death.

Ronen Bergman, author of “By Any Means Necessary,” and other books and articles on Israel's covert operations claims targeting al-Mabhouh fits the pattern of Israeli assassinations. "In some cases” states Bergman, “Israel has decided to close the circle and wreak vengeance on people who were behind symbolic acts of terrorism - not necessarily the most violent or lethal acts."

To add further confusion journalist Avi Issacharoff (Haaretz), quotes a Hamas source indicating a complete volte-face

Mahmoud al-Mabhouh had enemies across the Middle East and was wanted by Jordan and Egypt. A preliminary investigation conducted by Hamas suggests that the assassination was likely carried out by agents of an Arab government, and not by the Mossad. Osama Hamdan, a colleague of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh said in an interview with Hezbollah TV channel Al-Manar "It is quite possible that Palestinian Authority security forces were involved.”

The Israeli web site Debka files offers yet another dubious theory.

Namely, that Hamas may have belatedly dredged up al-Mabhouh's death to finger Israel - a sure-fire means of distracting attention from Hamas leadership's many troubles.
Journalist Alon Ben-David is currently senior defence correspondent for Israel's Channel 10 and also Middle East correspondent for Jane's Defence Weekly and Aviation Week.

This week Ben David went to Dubai to try and find out what really happened

in al-Mabhouh’s hotel room.
Ben David is a responsible and cautious reporter; therefore I tend to accept his account of the al-Mabhouh assassination. “As always when travelling, al-Mabhouh had taken the precaution of reserving in advance a room with no balcony and sealed windows. On arrival, he deposited a case of documents in the hotel safe before spending around an hour in his room.
At about 4:30 pm. he left the hotel for a meeting. It is assumed he dined outside the hotel because there is no record of him ordering food or drink, before returning to his room at around 9:00 pm.
While he was out his assailants entered his room and waited for him to return. Apparently some of the hit team waited outside the hotel to warn of his approach. At 9:30 pm. Al-Mabhouh's wife called his mobile phone. There was no answer. It seems he was already dead. His body was discovered the following day.
Post mortem examinations revealed signs of electrocution beneath both ears -presumably from a device used to stun him.

Alon Ben David says that the surveillance cameras in the hotel lobby and corridors should have supplied some information about the assassins, how and when they entered al-Mabhouh's room and when they left, but so far the authorities in Dubai have released few details.

The exact cause of death is still a matter of speculation. Electrocution, asphyxiation (strangling and smothering), poisoning or induced heart attack have been mentioned and according to some reports he died a double death.

Apparently like Rasputin he was hard to kill.

The many varied and conflicting accounts of the assassination are partly due to the dearth of reliable information regarding the circumstances of al-Mabhouh's death and the identity of his killers.

So far no one has taken the credit for the assassination and the only eye witnesses are the perpetrators themselves and they are not volunteering information.

Dubai and the Al Bustan Rotana hotel are anxious to end the embarrassing incident. It’s simply bad for business.

Two weeks ago Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was known mainly to intelligence agencies, Middle East affairs analysts, a few journalists and a number of erudite scholars. Although he helped found the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military wing, he really attained notoriety when he organised the kidnapping and killing of two Israeli soldiers 21 years ago at the time of the first Intifada.

More recently he was a key figure in organising weapons shipments and smuggling them into the Gaza Strip.

Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was a villain and deserves no sympathy. Maybe his grieving wife is consoled by the knowledge that her husband has been declared a "Shahid" (martyr) and now she has 72 replacements.

It's fair to assume that the Mossad had every reason to kill al-Mabhouh.

Certainly to avenge the kidnapping and murder of the two Israeli soldiers Avi Sasportas and Ilan Saadon. An additional motive for al-Mabhouh’s assassination is that it undermines the Hamas weapons supply branch entrusted with the complicated logistics of shipments from Iran to Gaza.

Yossi Melman is an intelligence and military affairs correspondent for Haaretz . He has co-authored a number of books on espionage and Israel’s intelligence community. In an article entitled “The Mossad killing of terror chiefs has little impact on the Israel-Hamas war,” published in Haaretz this week he claims, “‘special operations,’ like the assassination in Dubai (if this indeed was a Mossad operation), have always accounted for a relatively small proportion of its overall activity.” Rightly so he maintains that these “special operations” have earned the Mossad its feared cloak and dagger reputation. Melman warns that they are liable to divert their attention from their primary mission, namely gathering intelligence information.

“Over the years, on the basis of past precedents, the intelligence community has tried to develop a ‘combat doctrine’ for this type of operation. This doctrine holds that only assassinating the leaders of a terrorist group can have a strategic impact, as this is thought to deal a severe blow to the organisation.” …..” However the assassinations – (according to foreign reports) - of the PLO's Abu Jihad (1988), Islamic Jihad leader Fathi Shikaki (1995) and Hezbollah's Imad Mughniyeh (2008), though they dealt severe blows to their respective organisations, did not cause them to collapse.

And this is all the more true when the person assassinated is a mid-level operative like Mabhouh. Every terrorist, no matter how senior, is soon replaced, sometimes by someone even better or more professional. “
Although Melman doubts the value of these assassinations and believes “they will have only a marginal impact on the battle between Israel and Hamas,” he is aware of Israel’s unenviable predicament. Passive resistance doesn’t work in this neighbourhood. We simply have to continually hound, harass and eliminate our enemies before they have a chance to eliminate us.

Mahmoud al-Mabhouh’s death in Dubai brought to mind Luchino Visconti's film (1971)

"Death in Venice" based on Thomas Mann's novella.

Of course the two scenarios have little in common except perhaps the lonely deaths of the main players. Moreover, the music track of Visconti’s film, Gustav Mahler’s Fifth Symphony seems out of place in Dubai.

Not wanting to conclude in such a morbid mood I want to include an extract from an e-mail I received from an old friend - Russell Francis from Australia. He added a few forgotten details from the Bob Dylan story I wrote about last week:

“Greetings Beni

I remember well the time when Bob Dylan's cousin "Sandy Katz" volunteered at Ein harod, it was in 1972 and was the time my brothers Ray & Gary and Bryan Smith were also volunteers there. Sandy often spoke about Bob and was in contact with him.”

Have a good weekend.

Beni 4^th of February, 2010.