The Levanter Part 6

There was a flash of anger. 'Simply because I wish to teach. . . .'

I cut him off sharply. 'No. Simply because you are lying. You aren't instructing anyone in the techniques of chemistry, as you so elegantly put it. What you are giving is a do-it-yourself kitchen course in the manufacture of explosives. What is more you are giving it at my expense.'

'I a.s.sure you, sir. . . .' He died hard.

'You can't a.s.sure me of anything, Issa. I know what I'm talking about.' I pointed to the jar on the table. 'That precipitate you were so lovingly antic.i.p.ating is fulminate of mercury. How many detonators would that have filled? A hundred? A hundred and fifty? You're not pa.s.sing on any advantages, Issa, you're pa.s.sing on recipes for amateur bomb-making.'

'My work is not amateur,' he protested hotly.

I had a sudden feeling that I wasn't handling the situation very well. Now that the truth was out he should have been on the defensive and trying to make excuses, not arguing. I concluded that it was the armed men who were giving him confidence.

'I'm not interested in the quality of your work,' I snapped. 'The point is that you're not doing any more of it here-any work of any kind. As of this moment you are dismissed. You can consider yourself lucky, and so can your bomb-making friends, if I don't inform the police as well.'

For the first time the watchman spoke. 'But why will you not inform the police, Mr Howell? If this man has stolen from you and is also making explosives illegally, is it not your duty to inform them?'

He had a high, rather thin voice, but it was-the voice of an educated man. I suddenly realised that I knew very little about the watchman, and that, except when I had given him his original instructions, I had never spoken with him. There had been no occasion to do so. I looked at him coldly.

'I said if I don't inform the police. If I do decide to inform them, your name will certainly be in the complaint as an accomplice, so don't tempt me by telling me my duty.'

He rose very slowly to his feet. He was a tall man of about my own age with a long nose, a moustache, and deeply lined cheeks. 'Perhaps then,' he said, 'I should introduce myself.'

His self-a.s.surance irritated me. 'Your name is Salah Ya.s.sin,' I told him, 'and I engaged you six months ago as a night watchman. I was told that you were an ex-army man with a wound disability and of good character. Obviously, I was misinformed. You, too, are now dismissed. I want the lot of you off these premises within five minutes. After that you will be trespa.s.sing on government property and I shall certainly call the police. Now, leave your keys on the table there and get out.'

The watchman looked pained. 'It is ill-mannered, Mr Howell, to refuse to hear a man when he offers politely to introduce himself. Ill-mannered and foolish.' His eyes hardened as he stared into mine. 'My name is Salah, yes. But it is Ghaled not Ya.s.sin. Salah Ghaled. I am sure you have heard of it.'

Teresa drew in her breath sharply.

With me shock and disbelief fought a brief battle. Shock won. I dare say I gaped at him stupidly. Anyway our consternation was obvious enough to please him.

He gave us a satisfied nod.

Chapter 3.

LEWIS PRESCOTT May 14 Michael Howell has left us in no doubt about his att.i.tude towards reporters. I cannot altogether blame him. Some of my European colleagues have given him a rough time. However, as he has seen fit to exempt Frank Edwards and me from his blanket indictment, I hope he won't mind too much if I now suggest that much of the hostile press and TV criticism of his part in the Ghaled affair he brought on himself.

In his anxiety to protect his company reputation - to say nothing of the reputations of his father, his mother, his grandfather, his sisters, Miss Malandra and his brother-in-law -he damaged his own. Under questioning he did himself less than justice. He said either too little or more often, far too much; and invariably he sounded evasive. When a reported asked a direct question - 'Mr Howell, did you know what these arms were going to be used for?'- and received in reply, say, a lecture on the difficulties of dry-battery manufacture, the reasons why the Agence Howell had hired a Palestinian-refugee chemist and the problems of the Agence Howell's blocked Syrian a.s.sets, he was apt to conclude that Mr Howell was dissembling. Mr Howell's too frequent protestations that what he was trying to do was to give the whole picture, background as well as foreground, didn't help either. Reporters are inclined to believe that, given the essential facts of a story, plain and unadorned, they are quite capable of drawing the picture for themselves. 'Garrulous smokescreen' may be a mixed metaphor, but I can understand the feelings of the man who mixed it.

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 reaction 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 a.s.sumed 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 pa.s.s 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 guerilla-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 guerilla 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 the 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 guerilla 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 Pres-cott, was never acceptable to us Palestinians. With or without our allies in the Arab States, we the fedayin have always fought on.'

'But what do you think you have accomplished by doing so, Mr Ghaled? To put the question another way, what do you consider has been the main achievement of the guerilla, the fedayin 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 Ya.s.sir Arafat's or Dr George Habash's or Kemal Adwan's - and Kemal, an El 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 El 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 the 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 dependants, all three million of them, and sail away for ever. Where to, you ask? I hear that there are plenty of wide-open s.p.a.ces in Texas and New Mexico that could accommodate these people. Of course, it is possible that the present owners of those s.p.a.ces 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 forty-eight 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 'forty-eight 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 guerilla 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 quant.i.ty 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 guerilla fighting in Jordan and the 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 hijackings 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 pa.s.sengers, 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 house-cleaning 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 a.s.sumed, I think with reason, that you were speaking figuratively. Was I wrong in that a.s.sumption?'

'Quite wrong.'

'You would not object to my quoting you on that?'

'Not in the least.'