On the cynical merry-go-round of hostage-taking in the Middle East

Press, 5 March 1987, Page 20

On the cynical merry-go-round of hostage-taking in the Middle East

ROBIN LUSTIG

in Jerusaiemon the~ horrible trade in

The story is told in Beirut of a group of kidnappers who discovered to their chagrin that their hostage had nd value. No matter how gruesome their threats, noone offered a ransom. Eventually, they agreed to let him go, but not before one last appeal to his Government “You must give us something,” they pleaded. “We’ve had to pay for all his food for months.”

The story, which those who tell it swear is true, illustrates a fundamental truth about hostages: they have no value other than that which someone is prepared to put on them. Like a banknote or a cheque, they are worth nothing if no-one will redeem them. Not one of the two dozen or so Western hostages currently being held in Lebanon was kidnapped because of who he was: each was seized for what he might be exchanged for. In most cases, the exchange demanded has been a straight prisoner swap. Islami Jihad wants 17 Shias jailed in Kuwait sprung, another group wants Mohammed Ali Hamadei, held in West Germany on suspicion of having been one of the hijackers of a T.W.A. jet in 1985. And what did the T.W.A. hijackers want? The release of 700 Lebanese Palestinian prisoners held in Israel. Because all Western Governments — even including such

self-confessedly “macho” administrations as the Reagan White House — find it virtually impossible to resist the kidnapper’s pressure, the technique has had some remarkable successes. Even Israel, which prides itself on having shown the world the way to deal with “terrorists,” from the Entebbe rescue to the air raid on the P.L.O. headquarters in Tunis, is not immune, especially if there is a chance of obtaining the freedom of captured servicemen.

It was in May, 1985, that the Israeli Defence Minister, Mr Yitzhak Rabin, authorised the release of more than 1000 Palestinian prisoners in return for the freeing of three, repeat three, Israeli soldiers held by a proSyrian Palestinian group, Ahmed Jibril’s Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—General Command. Within a matter of weeks, the T.W.A. Boeing 737 had been hijacked and 39 of its passengers held hostage in the southern suburbs of Beirut for two weeks.

Shortly after their release, Israel freed all its remaining Lebanese prisoners, something it insists it was intending to do anyway. Perhaps so, but among

the Shias of southern Lebanon, many of whom had relatives detained in Atlit prison in Israel, it was widely believed, rightly or wrongly, that it had been the T.W.A. hijackers who got their loved ones out. No wonder the arrest of Hamadei in Frankfurt led to a wave of renewed kidnappings. Now Israel is hinting strongly that it may be prepared to do a deal to get an air force navigator, captured after his Phantom was shot down over south Lebanon last October, back home safely. When I was in Beirut during the T.W.A. saga, I got to know quite well an air-traffic controller in the Beirut airport control tower. He was in almost hourly contact by radio with the hijackers, for whom, he said, he had little sympathy. But the controller, himself a Shia, did not try to disguise his basic agreement with their point of view: “Israel has hijacked 700 of our people, and we believe we have a right to have them back."

Now one of the alleged hijackers has been arrested. West Germans living in Beirut, predictably, were kidnapped soon after. The German authori-

ties, equally predictably, seem reluctant to extradict their suspect to the United States for fear of the dire consequences this might have on the hostages. The kidnappers have already won round one.

Of all the nations to have been threatened directly by Lebanese kidnappers, Kuwait has been the most steadfast. Three of its citizens have been seized in Beirut since 1984, but the ruling family of the oil-rich Gulf emirate have refused point-blank even to discuss the possibility of a deal. Even the disappearance of Mr Terry Waite, apparently because of his inability to persuade the Kuwaitis to budge an inch, has failed to move them. The men who kidnapped Mr William Buckley, the C.l.A.’s Beirut station chief, gambled that his employers would be prepared to pay a high price to get him back. They were right: so terrified were Washington’s intelligence chiefs that Mr Buckley might be forced to reveal (he eventually died in captivity, reportedly as a result of inadequate medical care after prolonged torture) that they were willing even to authorise the sale of weapons direct to Teheran in the forlorn

hope that this would get him out No sane person can approve of kidnappings. Certainly no journalist who knows that he and his colleagues are themselves at risk is likely to have much time for the people prepared to snatch innocent citizens without warning and hold them apparently indefinitely.

But what does a sane person say when the United States Sixth Fleet masses its warships in the eastern Mediterranean, while Israel calmly intercepts a boat on the high seas and captures 50 Palestinians on their way from Cyprus to Lebanon.

Mr Terry Waite understood better than most the folly of categorising the actors on the Middle East stage simply as “goodies" and “baddies.” His goal throughout has simply been to obtain the release of innocent hostages. I imagine that once he heard of the arrest of Mohammed Ali Hamadei, he will not have been surprised to find himself added to the list of hostages. You have one more of ours, said the Lebanese, so now we have one more of yours. Like a roulette wheel, the cynical merry-go-round of hostage-taking goes on spinning. , Copyright — London Observer Service.

The Germans seem reluctant to extradite the suspect for fear of the dire consequences