British gov't covers up murder of IRA activists

Scan page 8

8 SOCIALIST ACTION NOVEMBER 1988 The coroner's inquest into the March 1988 killings of three unarmed Irish Republican Army (IRA) Volunteers by the British Special Air Services (SAS) on Gibraltar ended on Sept. 30. A nine-to-two majority brought a verdict of "lawful killing."

The families of the victims-Mairead part Farrell, Sean Savage, and Dan McCann— law. plan to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. They may also file a civil suit in Belfast.

After numerous delays, the inquest began Sept. 6, a full six months after the shootings. From the beginning, the proceedings were weighted in favor of the agents who carried out the killings. The British government set the agenda and called the shots as to what information could and could not be divulged.

The jury of 11 men was selected by the Gibraltar police and included senior Gibraltar civil servants, one of whom was jury foreman.

British Home Secretary Douglas Hurd and Defense Secretary George Younger produced certificates claiming immunity for intelligence and defense information. They sought to protect British cabinet members who ordered the killings.

The British agents were allowed to remain anonymous and to testify behind screens. Others simply gave written statements, thereby denying cross-examination rights to the victims' families. No counterAfter five years inside a federal prison cell, Joseph Patrick Doherty, an Irish freedom fighter, is still waging a gallant fight for his own liberty. But he finds the time to be deeply concerned over the unity and purpose of the Irish American community.

In a recent interview at the Metropolitan Correction Center in New York City, Doherty, now 33 years old, expressed his views about the role of the Irish American community in the cause of Irish freedom.

"There has to be a greater commitment on the part of Irish Americans," said Doherty. "They must work harder for a British withdrawal from Ireland. British withdrawal is the key to real peace for our land—a peace based on genuine justice.

"I realize many Irish Americans are turned off by the violence they see on their evening television news," he continued. "But they must begin to look behind the headlines to the causes of the problem—the discrimination, the repression, the tactics of the British army, the death squads, the massive propaganda of misinformation, and the sense of hopelessness that is so provision exists Campaign of disinformation Between the time of the killings and the inquest, an hysterical disinformation campaign was launched by the British. This included statements that there had been a shoot-out between the "terrorists" and regular police and that a "500-lb." car-bomb had been defused by experts.

The British carried out an almost pathetic search for a fourth "bomber," naming five separate innocent people. Of course, all of these claims have been proven utterly false.

In addition, the lawyer for the victims' families, Paddy McGrory, was denied access to official documents, witness reports, or other findings until they were presented at the inquiry. McGrory was not allowed to call witnesses.

In contrast, the British government had a legal team with extensive files, statements, interviews with witnesses, and scientific experts to prove their case.

And yet, to any unbiased observer, the only verdict in the Gibraltar killings can be murder. Every one of the agents' main contentions was contradicted by the evipervasive in the six counties. We are in a war."

dence. The belief is growing that a shoot-to-kill policy exists against any Irish person thought to be dangerous to the British state.

The agents' claim that the Volunteers had secretly entered Gibraltar was completely contradicted by the admission of Spanish police that the three were under "minute by minute" surveillance by the British. It was revealed that Spanish authorities informed the British at the moment of the border crossing.

According to the testimony of Gibraltar Special Branch Officer Joe Ullger, "The only way to succeed [in the British plan] was to allow the three Volunteers to come in and for them to be dealt with" (Irish People, Oct. 8, 1988). In other words, the victims could have been stopped at the border and arrested alive, but were instead allowed across so British agents could kill them.

Spanish police were ready to testify to this up until Sept. 19, but were prevented from doing. so after British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher paid a visit to Spanish Premier Felipe Gonzalez. Thatcher convinced him to not allow their testimony "out of respect for the legal proceedings in Fighting extradition Doherty has spent 15 years of his young life behind bars for offenses associated with his membership in the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Since 1983, the Thatcher government, aided by the Reagan administration, has been trying to extradite Doherty to the north of Ireland.

In 1981, Doherty was involved in a shootout in Belfast with a unit of the Special Air Service, which is suspected by human-rights organizations of having a shoot-to-kill policy against Irish Republicans. A British officer was killed in the duel. Doherty was arrested and convicted of murder in the notorious Diplock (non-jury) court.

But before the sentence of 30 years could be imposed, Doherty made a spectacular escape from jail. He was arrested in this country on an immigration warrant.

Doherty is a staunch supporter of "liberation theology" and a great admirer of Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa. He draws parallels between the heroic struggle in the six counties of Ireland and the struggles for national liberation and social justice taking place in Gibraltar." (Irish People, Oct. 8, 1988)

The SAS claimed they believed the IRA had a car-bomb which could be detonated by remote control. This testimony was shattered by an electronics expert who demonstrated the impossibility of detonating a bomb in the car which was one-and-a-half miles away from the killings.

Furthermore, that the agents even believed there was a car-bomb is contradicted by the fact that the area near the car was cleared only after the slayings, two hours after it was parked.

Eye-witness accounts Most damning were the eye-witness accounts of the attack. Carmen and Maxie Proetta witnessed the shooting of Farrell and McCann from their flat, which directly overlooks the gas station where the incident took place. Under heavy cross-examination, both maintained that no warning was sounded and that Farrell raised her hands as if to surrender before she was shot down. McCann was then shot as he held Farrell, trying to protect her.

The Proettas witnessed agents go over to the bodies as they lay on the ground, point their guns, and "finish off" the unarmed Irish Volunteers. According to the Proettas' testimony, blood gushed out from their bodies "like when you break a pipe" (Irish People, Oct. 8, 1988). Their account was corroborated by other witnesses.

Because of her determination to testify, Carmen Proetta was the victim of a smear campaign. The British press accused her of being a prostitute, owning a shady "escort" agency, having a criminal record, and being anti-British.

Although agents claimed to have "challenged" the Volunteers, "soldier D" revealed during the testimony that he would have continued shooting until the victims were dead even had they surrendered. On examination, it was discovered that a total of 27 bullets had riddled their bodies, 16 in one person alone. Some were shot from the back-and at a range as close as four feet.

Three weeks after the Gibraltar verdict, the Margaret Thatcher government introduced legislation that will abolish the traditional right of defendants in the North of Ireland to not be forced to testify against themselves. Already, in the "Diplock courts," people are convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of paid informers.

These reactionary measures-and the fact that since 1983 there have been at least 49 killings by security forces in the North of Ireland—clearly demonstrate there can be no justice for the Irish under British rule.

South Africa, America, South Poland.

"If I were born in this country, ;" he underscores, "I'm sure things would have been different for me. But I was born on the New Lodge Road in Belfast, the son of a longshoreman, in an environment of hatred and violence.

"After the crushing of the civil-rights movement, there were few options open to me. I was regularly baited by British soldiers as being 'an Irish bastard.' I was interned without trial. I belong, however, to a generation of determined Irish."

"Bring the troops home"

"The year 1989," Doherty added, "will mark the 20th anniversary of the presence of the British army en masse in the six counties. I think the British people, like the Americans during the awful trauma of their Vietnam War conflict, want their boys to come home. That's why Irish American involvement now in the British withdrawal movement is so important to help bring this matter to a positive conclusion."

"Irish America must become unified," Doherty said. "We don't want their money or guns. But we do need a strong lobby in Washington, D.C. It must take a strong stand with the politicians and not allow them to get away with any play-acting.' Supporters of Irish freedom are inspired by Doherty's courage in the face of his long ordeal. "Every day is the same, but somehow it's always different for me," Doherty said. "I have to be strong. I must keep my dignity.

Scan page 9

... Palestinians face challenge "I will win my Palestinian state by fighting, not by recognition of Israel."

(continued from page 1: “Palestinian resistance faces new challenge”)

Resolutions 242 and 338, both of which affirm Israel's right to exist, on the condition that "the national rights of the Palestinian people be recognized."

According to the pro-P.L.O. weekly, Al Fajr, Abu Sharif's proposal had the support of Arafat and a majority of the top P.L.O. leadership. The document, according to Al Fajr, constituted a "trial balloon."

In recent weeks, a flurry of diplomatic initiatives have been undertaken with the goal of giving a content to the concept of "Palestinian national rights" that would be acceptable both to the P.L.O. leadership and to the U.S. and Israeli governments.

The different formulas under consideration, however, do not involve the formation of an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza.

The "moderate" Arab governments of the region, for example, have been placing increased pressure on the top P.L.O. leadership to accept a plan that would establish a Palestinian state in confederation with Jordan. While all the details have not been worked out, the plan involves placing a Palestinian mini-state under the direct control of Jordan's King Hussein.

This plan was proposed by U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz and has been endorsed by Hussein and by Israeli Labor Party leader Shimon Peres.

The Shultz Plan (or "Jordan option" as it is sometimes called) had been rejected by P.L.O. Chairman Yasir Arafat in 1986 as a violation of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. But on Oct. 23, 1988, after a meeting in Jordan organized by Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak, the P.L.O. leadership announced it was now willing to consider a confederation with Jordan. The meeting included Arafat, Hussein, and Mubarak.

Palestinian self-rule?

Hani Hassan, a top P.L.O. official and a close adviser to Arafat, heartily endorsed the "Jordan option" as a formula "to establish Palestinian self-rule in the Israeli-occupied territories."

"Confederation with Jordan is a Palestinian wish and a Palestinian aim," Hassan said. "If the Americans ask us to do this, they are asking us to do what is in our interest."

The Soviet bureaucracy has also offered back-handed support to the proposal to form a Palestinian confederation with Jordan. After an Israeli delegation visited the Soviet Union in mid-July, "Western diplomats reported that Moscow appears to have dropped its insistence on the creation of an independent Palestinian state as part of a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict and may be open to other proposals." (San Francisco Chronicle, July 28, 1988)

Contrary to what P.L.O. leader Hani Detroit:

Midwest Educational Conference:

Nov. 12-13, Wayne State University.

"Labor's Turning Point," with Jake Cooper, "What Malcolm X Would Say Today, "by Kwame M.A. Somburu, "Nicaragua: Is the War Over?" by Carl Finamore, "What is Socialism," by Barbara Putnam. more info. call: 313-871-4049.

San Francisco:

Film: "Cover-Up" (Iran-Contra Scandal).

A Socialist Action speaker will lead the discussion. Fri., Nov. 18, 8 p.m., 3435 Army St., Rm. 308, S.F.

Los Angeles:

"Palestinian Uprising: One Year Later.

Speaker: Ralph Schoenman, author "The Hidden History of Zionism." Fri., Dec. 2, 7:30 p.m.

Los Angeles City College, Holmes Hall, Room 6, 855 N. Vermont. Hassan may wish to believe, the U.S. government, which has bankrolled the Israeli state's brutal repression of the Palestinian people for over 40 years, does not have the Palestinian people's best interests at heart. In the past year alone, more than 380 Palestinians have been killed, while thousands more have been injured and tens of thousands have been detained and tortured by Israeli police.

If the imperialists and their allies (including the Soviet bureaucracy) are pushing the "Jordan option" it is precisely because it will place a Palestinian mini-state under the tutelage of Hussein, the man who, in the "Black September" of 1970, brutally put down a Palestinian uprising that demanded genuine self-rule.

Will it be a sovereign state?

Another option considered by the P.L.O. leadership—and wings of the liberal Zionist establishment-does not involve a confedSAAC eration with Jordan. But it is no less violation of Palestinian national rights.

This version of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza was outlined by "liberal" Zionist professor Jerome Segal in a prominently featured article in the June 19, 1988, issue of Al Fajr.

Segal's views were endorsed by Hanna Siniora, senior editor of Al Fajr-an endorsement which carries tremendous weight. It was Siniora who represented the P.L.O. at a meeting last January with Secretary of State George Shultz. Siniora's endorsement is widely viewed as tacit support for Segal's proposal by the "moderate" elements in the P.L.O. leadership.

Segal's blueprint for a Palestinian state is specific.

• It will be a permanently demilitarized state so as to allay Israeli fears. ("This way," Segal told an audience at Hebrew University on Aug. 23, "this [Palestinian] state won't be able to attack Israel.")

• It will forbid "all acts of terrorism and announce penalties for any violations." [Hence, if any Palestinian were to resist an Israeli attack or provocation, the new state would be obligated to take legal action.] • Only light weapons required for the maintenance of law and order by Palestinian police would be allowed.

Meanwhile, the Israeli army would control all border checkpoints to monitor the demilitarization of the state. Exiled Palestinians would have the right to return to the Palestinian state-but only to visit.

Other "liberal" Zionists who have endorsed Segal's proposal have argued that, in order to win the support of the Israeli Labor Party, it should be stipulated that a new Palestinian state would not include all of the West Bank and Gaza.

Israeli Labor Party leader Shimon Peres, the alleged "peace candidate" in the Nov. 1 presidential elections, has stated that only portions of the West Bank and Gaza would be "exchanged for peace." These are areas which have the fewest Israeli settlements and "are not essential to our security."

Peres' conditions could be easily dismissed as ludicrous were it not for the fact that Jerome Segal, the "moderate" Arab nations, and Yasir Arafat openly called on the Israeli people to vote for Peres as a "way to secure a just peace in the region.

Will it be a transition?

The final and most important consideration in assessing the meaning of Fahdi al-Khalidi, age 15 Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza is whether it will be a transition, as many P.L.O. supporters claim, to the establishment of a unitary, democratic, and secular Palestine.

The answer to this question is a categorical "no" if the establishment of a Palestinian state entails the recognition of the Israeli state's right to exist in its pre1967 borders. Those lands are also "occupied territories." They were seized from the Palestinians through massacres and savage repression 40 years ago.

The recognition of the Israeli state's right to exist takes all legitimacy away from the struggle to liberate the rest of Palestine from the Zionist colonial-settler state. It is no longer a bridge toward an ultimate goal; it is an almost insurmountable obstacle.

In fact, recognition of Israel retroactively invalidates the decades-long struggle by the Palestinians, making their "40 years of rejectionism" the reason for the failure to achieve a "peaceful settlement" all along.

Opposition to mini-state

Supporters of the P.L.O. leadership's "two-state" solution argue that the entire Palestinian population now supports the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza.

While it is probably true that many, if not most, Palestinians would support an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza as a first step toward full liberation-something which the U.S., Israeli, and Arab governments SOCIALIST ACTION ECONOMY Firmest Mande.

anals ses the -tim h pelenti..np....

interstics USSR Corhaches w sport new mastifie.stion of !:.!ur SPECIAL PLATURE America • Nursi U.S. journalist shot by journalist shot Israeli troops Neal Cassidy, a photojournalist for Impact Visuals, was shot and wounded by Israeli troops in the West Bank town of Nablus on Oct. 18. He was hit by a plastic bullet when troops opened fire without warning on a group of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators. Socialist Action expresses its outrage at this incident.

will never permit-there is ample evidence to indicate that they will strongly oppose recognizing Israel's right to exist on portions of occupied Palestine.

Even the mainstream media has pointed this out. Marcia Kunstel reports the mood of many Palestinians in an article titled, "A West Bank state wouldn't be enough for many Palestinians" (San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 12, 1988). She writes:

"[Palestinian] refugees spread throughout the Middle East ... desire to return to the land their families fled when the new state of Israel was created 40 years ago. Thousands of them came from land that is not in the West Bank or Gaza Strip.

"We are against such a state,' said Hassan Ali, a 25-year-old resident of the Sitt Zena refugee camp in Syria, who was asked about a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. 'I personally seek the liberation of Palestine, but not what Arafat calls for today, he said.

"Why should I go back to somewhere that is not really my home? said Mustafa, who did not give his full name. 'My home is Jaffa [far outside the West Bank]. My orange grove is there. I have my property there. I have the deeds. So why shouldn't I go back?'' The Wall Street Journal (Sept. 29, 1988) quotes 15-year-old Fadi al-Khalidi: "Up to now everything that Chairman Arafat has done has been right. But the day he recognizes Israel is the day I will oppose him. I will win my Palestinian state by fighting, not by recognition.

These views indicate that the Palestinian people's goal to free their entire homeland from Zionist occupation is still very much alive in their hearts and minds.

A democratic, secular Palestine In 1968, the P.L.O. first put forward its program for the establishment of a democratic, secular Palestine-one in which Palestinian Jews, Arabs, and Christians could live together as equals and without discrimination.

Yasir Arafat described this proposal as follows:

"We are saying 'no' to the Zionist state, but we are saying 'yes' to the Jewish people of Palestine. To them we are saying, 'You are welcome to live in our land, but on one condition: You must be prepared to live among us as equals, not as dominators."

This perspective is fully applicable today. Far from being "maximalistic," as the P.L.O. leadership now claims, it is the only one that offers a revolutionary perspective for the Palestinian struggle. It is the only one, moreover, that can point the way toward a durable peace in the region.

niernation VIEWPOIN 130 November 23, 1947 1085. 82. C5250,1278 Subscribe today to International Viewpoint!

A biweekly magazine published under the auspices of the Fourth International. Introductory sub: 3 issues for $3. Six-month subscription: $25. One-year subscription: $47.

3435 Army St. Rm. 308, S.F., CA 94410.

NOVEMBER 1988

Scan page 10

Children are tracked even before they

----- pull-quotes -----

Socialist Action Forums

LIBERATION THEOLO:Y