Showing posts with label PLO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PLO. Show all posts

Mossad’s Assassinations and Europe’s Deadly Silence in the 1970s

 



The 1970s were years when the Palestinian struggle for freedom was fought not just in refugee camps or Middle Eastern cities, but also in the cafés, apartments, and quiet streets of Europe. Pens and books became weapons, but so did bombs and pistols. Israel’s Mossad went on a campaign to eliminate Palestinian intellectuals. At the same time, Palestinian factions carried out targeted killings of Israeli officials and Jewish citizens abroad.

Both sides crossed moral lines. And Europe, the continent where most of these killings took place, too often looked the other way.


Mossad’s Campaign of Assassinations

Between 1972 and 1981, Mossad eliminated prominent Palestinian figures—poets, novelists, diplomats.

  • Ghassan Kanafani, the novelist and PFLP spokesman, killed by a car bomb in Beirut (1972).

  • Wael Zwaiter, the translator in Rome, shot 12 times in his apartment building (1972).

  • Kamal Nasser, poet and PLO spokesperson, gunned down in his Beirut home (1973).

  • Ezzedine Kalak, PLO representative in Paris, killed in his office (1978).

  • Naim Khader, PLO representative in Brussels, shot outside his home (1981).

None of these men carried weapons. Their crime was shaping the intellectual and diplomatic face of Palestinian resistance. By silencing them, Israel hoped to weaken the movement. The morality of this is deeply troubling: executing people for ideas rather than crimes.


The Munich Massacre and Palestinian Violence in Europe

But the picture was not one-sided. In September 1972, members of Black September, a Palestinian faction linked to Fatah, stormed the Olympic village in Munich, taking Israeli athletes hostage. Eleven Israelis and one German policeman were killed.

Other attacks followed:

  • Israeli diplomat Ami Shachori assassinated in Brussels (1972).

  • Attacks at Orly Airport in Paris in the late 1970s by Palestinian militants.

  • Assassinations of Israeli embassy staff in Europe.

These acts, too, crossed the line of morality and ethics. They targeted civilians, athletes, and diplomats—people who were not carrying guns in a war zone but living abroad.


Europe’s Deadly Neutrality

The question that still hangs heavy: why did European governments allow this shadow war to play out on their streets?

European capitals became hunting grounds. Mossad agents slipped in and out, planting bombs and carrying silenced pistols. Palestinian factions established safe houses, built networks, and struck targets they considered legitimate.

Governments often looked away, unwilling to confront Israel or the Palestinians head-on. Some feared being dragged into Middle Eastern conflicts. Others feared terrorist reprisals if they cracked down too hard. The Cold War further complicated things—Palestinian groups had backing from Soviet-aligned states, while Israel was a close ally of the U.S.

The result was a grim silence. Ordinary Europeans paid the price when shootouts and bombings spilled into airports, train stations, and apartment blocks.


The Moral Lesson

The assassination of intellectuals is as indefensible as the massacre of Olympic athletes. Both acts robbed innocent people of their lives and dignity. Both betrayed the principles of justice and human rights.

And Europe’s failure to prevent or prosecute many of these crimes made it complicit. By hosting the struggle but refusing to police it, European capitals became stages for a war that should never have left the Middle East.

History remembers Kanafani’s books and Kamal Nasser’s poetry. It also remembers the image of athletes killed in Munich. What unites these memories is the simple truth: when states and movements embrace assassination, they kill not only people but also the possibility of peace

Starmer’s Palestine Move: Recognition of PLO or Reward for Hamas?

 


Kemi Badenoch, a senior Conservative MP, has sharply criticised Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s decision to push ahead with the recognition of a Palestinian state. Writing in the Jewish Chronicle, she said the move “rewards Hamas with statehood, emboldens extremists, and betrays Britain.”

Background to the Dispute

Britain has long balanced its position between Israel’s security and Palestinian aspirations. Previous governments avoided formal recognition of Palestine, arguing that statehood should follow direct negotiations. Labour, under Keir Starmer, has broken with this caution, signalling recognition as part of what it calls a “balanced foreign policy.”

Here lies a crucial distinction often overlooked. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), not Hamas, is the internationally recognised representative of the Palestinian people. The PLO declared the State of Palestine in 1988 and leads the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Hamas, by contrast, is designated as a terrorist organisation by the UK, the US, and the EU.

The Trigger for Badenoch’s Criticism

Starmer confirmed that recognition would not be conditional on a final peace deal, presenting it as an essential step toward a two-state solution. This prompted Badenoch’s statement, where she argued that “extremists learn from precedent. If terrorism is followed by statehood, the lesson is clear.”

Israeli officials have also voiced concern. Foreign Minister Israel Katz said in June that premature recognition “rewards Hamas for mass murder and hostage-taking.” Yet, diplomats argue that formal recognition of Palestine bolsters the PLO, not Hamas, and may even undercut the militants’ claim to represent Palestinians.

The Political Twist

Critics frame recognition as a “victory” for Hamas because the October 7 attacks remain fresh in memory. But legally and diplomatically, recognition is of the PLO’s State of Palestine, not Hamas. That difference is lost in the heat of political rhetoric. Supporters of recognition insist that keeping Palestinians indefinitely in limbo only strengthens Hamas, while giving political weight to the PLO offers an alternative to armed struggle.

Significance of the Debate

At stake is not only Britain’s credibility with Israel but also its standing across the Middle East. Supporters of Starmer’s move believe recognition is a moral duty and a way to pressure Israel toward negotiations. Critics insist it undermines Western unity against terrorism.

Dr Rosemary Hollis, former director of the Middle East Programme at Chatham House, has warned in past writings that “recognition without negotiation carries symbolic weight, but risks alienating one side and hardening positions.”

For Britain, the question is not just about diplomacy in the region. It is about the message sent to militant groups worldwide. Is the UK endorsing the principle that violence leads to political gain? Or is it attempting to restore balance by empowering the PLO against Hamas?

Starmer’s government insists it is the latter. Badenoch and her allies claim it is the former. Both sides know that the consequences will be read far beyond Westminster.

Deutschlandticket vs NYC Transit Fares: Public Transit Cost Breakdown

  I watched an S-Bahn glide into Munich Hauptbahnhof last week. My daughter tapped her phone at the turnstile, showing her monthly digital p...