Marwan Barghouti, imprisoned by Israel in 2002, is serving five life sentences for his role in multiple terrorist attacks within Israel. He is one of the legendary leaders of what is widely known as the Second Intifada, in which more than a thousand Israelis were killed and many thousands were injured.

But Barghouti is a very charismatic figure. Some call him the “Palestinian Mandela.”

The Fatah Central Committee, of which Barghouti remains a member, is probably aware that “President” Mahmoud Abbas’s term officially ended nearly five years ago. Abbas will have to be replaced at some point by someone who is elected and not just serving as a matter of inertia. And despite Abbas’s frequent claims that he will not run for re-election and his coy, semi-regular “threats” to withdraw from public office, the real problem for Fatah is that if there is an election, Hamas will be the likely victor.

If Hamas wins the next Arab Palestinian election, they will win not just in Gaza, but in the area referred to as the “West Bank.” At least one major reason that would be a terrible result for Fatah members is because all that delicious foreign aid money would dry up.

Enter Barghouti.  Or, rather, exit Barghouti.

At least that is the hope.

A new committee was formed in South Africa to campaign for Barghouti’s release from prison.  That committee, launched earlier this week, includes the anti-Apartheid activist Desmond Tutu.

This group issued a declaration, referring to Barghouti as “the most prominent and renowned Palestinian political prisoner, a symbol of the Palestinian people’s quest for freedom, a uniting figure and an advocate of peace based on international law.”

Barghouti clearly is a symbol, but surely reasonable people may quibble about whether he is a symbol of the Arab Palestinians’ quest for freedom and an advocate for peace.

Nonetheless, it is said that Barghouti’s popularity transcends merely the Fatah party, and extends even beyond Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In 2006, when Hamas and Fatah split, Barghouti was in the forefront of reunification efforts. While those more brazen advocates of violence support Barghouti, yet Barghouti is still a member of Fatah, thus allowing the western aid spigot to remain open.

Barghouti’s wife, Fadwa, believes her husband has not yet been a part of any of the prisoner swaps because she thinks the “old guard” of Fatah fears Barghouti’s political power.  But it may be that the old guard is finally realizing that Abbas cannot keep up his long running tap dance, and without new blood Fatah is doomed.

Or maybe others in the party see the handwriting on the wall, and are prepared to allow Barghouti to take his place in the limelight in order to ensure the steady flow of western aid.

A delegation of Fatah officials is scheduled to visit Barghouthi in the Israeli prison, according to the Arab Palestinian media outlet, Al Quds.

Mahmoud Al-Aloul, a member of Fatah’s central committee, said “We have intensified our efforts to design a practical plan which puts pressure on Israel to release Barghouti.”

“If Barghouti is appointed as Vice President to Abbas, and with sufficient international, Palestinian and Arab pressure, then the Israelis must release him, being as he would be a senior Palestinian official.”

Will the West embrace Marwan Barghouti, convicted mass murderer and darling of the Hate Israel crowd, as a legitimate candidate for office, and then force Israel to release the elected leader of the Arab Palestinians?

Sounds like a plan. One likely to succeed.

Note: Barghouti’s role in numerous terrorist activities leading to the deaths of Israelis and others is not in dispute, but this article has been changed to remove the suggestion that his convictions were for two suicide bombings. H/T DG.

Convicted Palestinian terror chief Marwan Barghouti, in comments to the Israel Security Service (Shin Bet) soon after his arrest in 2002, admitted to facilitating terror attacks during the second intifada, and told his interrogators that the Intifada “was supposed to be a popular uprising, but things got out of hand,” as first reported by Haaretz.

The Israeli daily obtained and published transcripts of  interrogation sessions dated April 21-May 14, 2002 at the Russian Compound in Jerusalem, 6 days after his arrest. They were released in the course of legal proceedings against the former Fatah Secretary-General, who was arrested and later convicted on charges of murder during the second intifada, and sentenced to five concurrent life sentences.

On the basis of these recorded partial confessions, he was indicted for three terror attacks: the murder of a Greek Orthodox monk near Ramallah in June 2001; the murder of an Israeli girl near Givat Ze’ev in January 2002; and the shooting attack at the Sea Food Market restaurant in Tel Aviv in March 2002, which left three civilians dead.

Barghouti on the second intifada

Barghouti, who also founded the al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade, spoke of the lead-up to the second intifada, and confirmed once again that Ariel Sharon’s controversial visit to the Temple Mount in September 2000 was convenient pretext for the “outbreak” of the Intifada – not the reason, “but the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

Barghouti spoke at length of fears within Fatah about being overshadowed on ‘the street’ by the more hardline elements involved in the intifada – Hamas and Islamic Jihad – and how this fear led them to attempt to outbid the other terror groups in proving their fidelity to the Palestinian cause. In essence this meant the use of suicide bombers by Fatah, and the elimination of the distinction between attacks within or over the Green Line.

Barghouti is documented as confirming his role in coordinating operations and activities of terror squads and in financing them as well. He details how, on one occasion, he gave orders to avenge a terrorist’s death, which resulted in the shooting death of an Israeli near Givat Ze’ev, and how he gave money to various individuals that were seeking to perpetrate attacks.

Barghouti on Arafat

Barghouti described Yasser Arafat as the prime mover, his direct commander, and the force behind Fatah’s overall policy. He painted a picture of Arafat as the man who issued only general orders, with the specifics implied, so that the acts perpetrated could not be traced back to him: “When Arafat would call for a cease-fire, he would convene the heads of Tanzim and instruct them, and add that if the cease-fire were to end, they knew what they would have to do, when it was clear to everyone that he was talking about a continuation of military activity.” Barghouti stressed that Arafat was instrumental to the intifada because, in no uncertain terms, he was bankrolling it, he was the “one source” from where all the finances flowed.

The Palestinian street, reflections on the peace process, and funny jokes

Concern over his image on the Palestinian street was preeminent in determining whether and how much to confess to his interrogators. At some point in the interrogation he insisted on meeting with then-Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter, or with his second, Yuval Diskin, before offering his confession: “There are things that a person in my position has to take care of in terms of the future, for my own interests and those of my men.” His request was not granted (at least not in the three and a half weeks that the transcripts cover). At another point, he is recorded as saying that “cooperation with the interrogation will be to his detriment in his future political career among his people.”

Barghouti compared the second intifada to the Yom Kippur War, in that the Palestinians feel they restored their pride, and achieved a type of balance with the terror wave, such that peace between the two peoples was now possible.

Looking back at the peace process, Barghouti blamed its failure on Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination.

Throughout the interrogations, Barghouti seems to vacillate between crafty pragmatist and uncompromising ideologue. At some points he suggests that Fatah’s descent into violence was a strategic mistake, and at others he insists that an independent state could only be achieved through bloodshed. Either way, ‘street cred’ was foremost in his decision-making, and he viewed his participation in terror activity as ensuring “that in the future he could point to himself as someone who worked both for peace when necessary and in war.”

In the three and a half weeks of interrogation revealed in the transcripts, the Shin Bet appeared to have developed a rapport with Barghouti, enough so that one wrote: “It should be noted that the subject has a well-developed sense of humor and provided us with a number of great jokes.”

It is not clear at this stage when and if new presidential and parliamentary elections will ever be held in the Palestinian territories. The two major Palestinian parties, Fatah and Hamas, have yet to end their power struggle and agree on the formation of a Palestinian unity government that would pave the way for long-overdue elections.

But if anyone is hoping that the elections will see the rise of moderate and charismatic leaders to power, then he is living in an illusion. In our Palestinian culture, it is more important if one “graduates” from an Israeli prison than from the most prestigious university in the world.

In our society, people like Prime Minister Salam Fayyad do not get many votes because they did not spend time in an Israeli prison. Fayyad’s chances of winning would be greater if he had killed a Jew or sent his son to carry out a suicide bombing in Israel.

The number of years one spends in Israeli prison can even be a major factor in getting a job or a military rank in the Palestinian Authority. Many of the Palestinian “colonels” and “generals” earned their ranks not by attending military academies, but by spending years in Israeli prison for their involvement in violence.

PLO Chirman Yasser Arafat would choose his security chiefs and top aide according to the number of years they had spent in prison or the number of Israelis they had killed. “You spent 20 years in prison? Then you get the rank of colonel!” Arafat would say. “You carried out an attack in which three Jews were killed? You are a general!”

Jibril Rajoub and Mohammed Dahlan, the two former security chiefs who served under Arafat, were appointed thanks to their having spent time in Israeli prison, not because of their qualifications; and this notion serves as the basis for Palestinian talk about jailed Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti — who is serving five life sentences for his role in shooting attacks that killed a number of Israelis during the Second Intifada — as the leading candidate to succeed Mahmoud Abbas.

Marwan Barghouti is therefore widely respected by Palestinians because of his role in the “Revolution.”

A man like Fayyad, who studied in Texas and did not spend one day in an Israeli prison, stands no chance at the ballot box against people like Barghouti — the by-product of what happens when the Palestinian Authority leadership praises prisoners and terrorists as heroes.

The Palestinian prisoners who were released in the Gilad Schalit prisoner agreement last October have already been offered thousands of dollars as well as apartments by both Palestinian governments,  in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip.

And it should not come as a surprise if some of these ex-prisoners, many of whom have Jewish blood on their hands, will be enthusiastically elected in the next round of Palestinian elections.

The Palestinians have raised an entire generation on the glorification of suicide bombers and terrorists — the direct result of decades of incitement and indoctrination, to which Palestinians are exposed at a very early age.

Under such circumstances, is it even a good idea at all to hold new elections in the Palestinian territories?

Originally published by Stonegate Institute www.stonegateinstitute.org

Palestinian negotiators have demanded the release of senior terror leaders in Israeli prison in order to continue talks with Israel, the Gulf News reported Wednesday.

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are currently meeting in Amman to agree on a formula for moving onto direct negotiations. The Quartet had imposed a deadline that is set to expire Thursday.

The report quoted a senior Fatah official as saying that “[a] Palestinian approval to direct negotiations, a two-month extension to the Quartet deadline and the continuation of the Amman exploratory meetings is possible only if Palestinian prisoners are released.”

The Palestinians are reportedly seeking the deportation of Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti and Ahmed Sa’adat, secretary-general of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has reportedly asked Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to free imprisoned terrorist Marwan Barghouti. Her argument, it would appear, is that the Tanzim leader remains very popular among the Palestinians, and that he is the only Fatah representative who could successfully supplant the Hamas-led government. Whether or not she is correct in her assessment of Barghouti’s popularity, such a release would violate the most elementary principles of law and justice, and would bring new violent attacks upon Israel.

Nullum crimen sine poena. “No crime without a punishment.” Codified in multiple sources after the Nuremberg Trials, this principle (called a peremptory norm) is so fundamental in international law that it can never be disregarded. Indeed, apart from formal jurisprudence, decency and common sense dictate that – in the midst of a far-reaching war on terror – the United States not demand the release of a major terrorist. And Barghouti is a very dangerous terrorist at that. Let us not forget that the intentional murder of Jewish children in Israel was his particular specialty.

When the victorious allied powers established a military tribunal at Nuremberg on August 8, 1945, they reaffirmed an ancient and ongoing principle of law. Criminals, especially those who have committed crimes of war, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity, will be punished. Period.

In 1946, this reaffirmation was first incorporated as Principle I of the legally binding Nuremberg Principles: “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.” These Nuremberg Principles, further formulated by the United Nations International Law Commission in 1950, stipulate: “Offenses against the peace and security of mankind…are crimes under international law, for which all responsible individuals shall be punished.”

Terrorism is a serious offense against the “peace and security of mankind.” Marwan Barghouti, leader of Tanzim and the man openly responsible for dozens of suicide bomb attacks on Israeli civilians, was – until his capture, trial and imprisonment – one of the world’s most wanted criminals. Arrested by Israeli special forces on April 15, 2002, Barghouti is currently serving multiple life sentences in an Israeli jail.

The Israeli imprisonment of Barghouti serves far more than that country’s particular national interest. It also represents indispensable support for our decentralized system of international law. Even today, when there exists an International Criminal Court, this largely self-help system must still rely upon the ready willingness of individual states to use their own domestic courts for the prosecution of international terrorists. In its trial of Barghouti, therefore, Israel acted correctly and productively on behalf of the entire civilized community of humankind.

Barghouti headed the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the Palestinian militia that systematically plans the dismemberment, burning and killing of Jewish men, women and children in schools, buses and restaurants (a group that the U.S. Secretary of State now believes to be relatively “moderate”). By the standards of contemporary international law, these terrorists are known as HOSTES HUMANI GENERIS, “common enemies of humankind.” In the fashion of pirates, who were to be hanged by the first proper authorities into whose hands they fell, these contemporary wrongdoers are international outlaws who come fully and incontestably within the scope of “universal jurisdiction.”

Punishment of violent crime must always lie at the very heart of justice. In our continuing sovereignty-centered system of world law, prosecution by individual states is still often the only available path to punishment. In the absence of Israel’s essential and law-enforcing operations against Palestinian terrorism, outlaws like Barghouti would remain forever free to commit further atrocities. Immune to the proper expectations of extradition and prosecution (the Palestinian Authority has never complied with these minimal obligations of international criminal law), Barghouti would have proceeded gleefully with his perverse organization of Palestinian children into explosive cadres of “martyrs.” It is essential, therefore, that he remain in an Israeli prison and not be mistaken for a “freedom fighter.”

Barghouti, of course, thinks of himself as a heroic liberator, not as a terrorist. But even if his objective of Palestinian self-determination could be accepted under authoritative international law, the means chosen in his use of violence were always indisputably unlawful. The Law of Armed Conflict, which applies to insurgents as well as to uniformed armies, makes it clear that the ends can never justify the means. A cause, even if it is presumed legitimate, can never excuse the deliberate use of violence against the innocent. Never.

All of Israel’s actions in the Barghouti case – custodial and juridical – are fully supported by our own American law. For the United States, the Nuremberg obligation to punish terrorists is doubly binding. This obligation represents not only the basic rules under international law, but also the calls of a Higher Law that are deeply embedded in the American system of governance. All international criminal law is part of the law of the United States, an incorporation expressed unambiguously at Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and at associated Supreme Court decisions.

On September 12, 2001, when Israeli flags were lowered to half-staff to honor America, Marwan Barghouti openly and enthusiastically celebrated our national misfortune. This Palestinian terrorist leader who Condoleezza Rice now seeks to restore to political authority and power is a sworn enemy of the United States. It should also be recalled that Barghouti is a major criminal who openly aided Saddam Hussein during his 1990-91 rape of Kuwait and who has now become a staunch supporter of Al Qaeda. It is highly improper and imprudent, therefore, that the Secretary of State of the United States now calls for his release for any reason, least of all to breathe life into a long-dead Middle East Peace Process.

Copyright: The Jewish Press, November 3, 2006. All rights reserved.

LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is the author of many books and articles dealing with international criminal law. He is Strategic and Military Affairs columnist for The Jewish Press.