Red Tamarin has received information that the Ramallah Agreement, on which basis Ahmad Sa’adat and others were held in the Jericho jail under the watchful eyes of UK and US monitors, was not actually ever signed by either the Israelis or the Palestinians. Both parties were presented with the agreement in 2002, but neither Sharon nor Arafat ever put pen to paper. It has been considered binding the UK and US, who have done their part in fulfilling its provisions, but it never really existed.
This makes the whole debacle that took place yesterday all the more ridiculous.
And in the aftermath of yesterday’s attack on the Jericho jail by the Israeli Defence Force, the fate of the UK monitors has been largely overlooked. We know that they were withdrawn from the jail before the invasion and yesterday Jack Straw repeatedly emphasised in the House his concern for their safety when he was making the decision to pull them out.
But what has happened to the monitors since? One might think that they were flown back to Britain, fully debriefed, and given some time off in recognition of their work in challenging conditions and having to leave at short notice. Red Tamarin is informed that having got the order to ‘leave immediately’ they managed to get from Jericho to Jerusalem, only to be told that they had all been fired. A judgement so swift that it makes Alan Sugar look like a compassionate and understanding employer.
editor[at]recessmonkey.com
Loading ...
What is all this boring crap? It is like the Guardian letters page here.
Can we get back to piss taking please. Make like monkeys not analysts.
That is all.
Guido Fawkes said this on March 16th, 2006 at 3:23 am
It’s an important issue and this post contains details and insight that you can’t find anywhere else in print or online media at present. It is, dare I say it, news.
And it’s proof that this blog can do serious political gossip as well as puerile gossip. But fear not, puerile is still our priority
I’m sorry it goes over your head Guido. If you want something more lowbrow, I invite you to take part in the competition on Government spending on alcohol that you will find a few posts below this one
Red Tamarin said this on March 16th, 2006 at 4:13 am
It’s interesting to note just how quickly the Israelis got their act together, the 50 tun armoured bulldozers were on the scene were almost immediately. These things are not fast. Also the fact that the main battle tanks were Merkava 3 baz and not the usual run of the mill achzarit bet’s so some serious shit was anticipated… Hummmmmph!!
Yes…I can be serious and well
Grand Mufti-Botitshiva Troughtwaxer the forth said this on March 16th, 2006 at 10:03 am
That’s not that interesting - the UK (and, presumably, US) governments gave two or three days notice (to the Palestinians and the Israelis, as per the agreement) that they were pulling out. Rather more interesting is that the security issue apparently began around six months ago, and it’s only now, with an election underway in Israel, that the decision was taken to pull the monitors out. If the timing does affect the election (whether it was intended to or not), it might actually be a good thing - helping the new Kadima party (which is open to movement towards peace) over Likud (which is not).
Gregg said this on March 16th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Actually we did not give two of three days warning of the pull-out (at least not officially). UK and US Consul Generals had written a number of letters (the last on March 8th - six days before the withdrawal) to the Palestinian Authority and copied to the Israeli Government saying that the situation the monitors were working in did not meet the terms of the Ramallah Agreement and that they would be withdrawn without notice if conditions did not improve.
The earliest the Israelis or Palestinians officially knew that the withdrawal was happening was that same morning. The time between the monitors leaving and the Israeli Defence Force arriving is believed to be between 10 and 20mins. You can make of that what you will.
Red Tamarin said this on March 16th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
RedTamarin: “Both parties were presented with the agreement in 2002, but neither Sharon nor Arafat ever put pen to paper. It has been considered binding the UK and US, who have done their part in fulfilling its provisions, but it never really existed.”
This is an interesting argument but not one that is based in fact. As any law student knows, an agreement is not binding only if it is written and signed. Oral contracts and agreements are equally binding (in most legal systems, including our own). We all enter into binding verbal agreements all the time.
The killer fact here is that the unsigned agreement has been implemented by the relevant parties all this time. The Palestinians kept this man in jail, the Israeli’s kept out of it, and the British and Americans provided the jailers.
We can all find the Israeli legal system a bit confusing from time to time (relying as it does on, ahem, facts-on-the-ground from time to time) but I can assure you that the Israeli courts have enforced verbal agreements where the conduct of the parties evidences mutual intent.
Are you sure you were providing details and insight that you can’t find anywhere else in print or online media at present (as you put it) and not being slipped a dummy by a vole?
TheVoleStrangler said this on March 17th, 2006 at 8:25 am
I am no lawyer, but I severely doubt that oral contracts are legal in international treaty law, which is what the Ramallah Agreement was, considering it was between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. I do not think that the drawing up of the agreement made it binding - only the signing can do that.
That is what I find quite so ridiculous - an unsigned agreement was enforced for all this time, and all the parties appeared to treat it as binding. Well, the Palestinians ceased to pay lipservice to it, and that is why eventually UK and US monitors were withdrawn.
And yes, I am absolutely certain of my source. I wouldn’t be willing to make a post of this nature if I wasn’t. The person from whom this information originated is in a position where it is their job to know details like that. I expect it to be noticed more widely in the near future, and I will return to it when it is - if only by posting another comment here.
Red Tamarin said this on March 17th, 2006 at 11:59 am
Ah, I will soon have verification as to whether my assertion on this is true or not. Jack Straw will soon be responding to the following question in the House of Commons:
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on what date the Ramallah Agreement concerning the ending of the siege of the Palestinian Presidential compound and the detention of prisoners to Jericho Prison was signed by (a) representatives of the government of Israel and (b) representatives of the Palestinian Authority.
(59762)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmordbk2/60317o01.htm
Red Tamarin said this on March 17th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Perhaps Richard Burden should be asking Jack Straw whether he was lying in the commons or if the Israeli Defence Force minister who said that they had discussed and co-ordinated the withdrawal with the British and Americans was lying?
TheVoleStrangler said this on March 17th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
I wouldn’t be surprised if the agreement wasn’t signed. There might have been some minor sticking points which hadn’t been agreed. There might also have been some bureaucratic incompetence that meant it was overlooked. The main point is that there was an agreement and that it had been implemented for some years.
If Straw or any one else tries to use this as a fig leave - to say that there was no agreement, hence no legal responsibility, nor moral responsibility to continue to guard those prisoners - then they are a vole!
TheVoleStrangler said this on March 17th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Mr Vole,
Nowhere have I said that the failure to sign the agreement is an excuse for what happened, and at no point has Jack Straw used the lack of signatures to justify the events that took place. There are enough things for you to be angry about without hypothesising new ones.
The question from Richard Burden I quoted is far from the only one awaiting Jack Straw’s attention. I suggest you look through at least 20 other questions awaiting the Foreign Secretary on different aspects of this matter.
Red Tamarin said this on March 17th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
The link on “repeatedly emphasised” already doesn’t work. When will people learn that it is no good linking to government web-pages: they’re too unreliable. You have to take a copy, and support efforts of wholesale copying like www.theyworkforyou.com
Julian Todd said this on March 18th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Hmm - the link to the Richard burden Q is broken:
“The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it.”
ringverse said this on March 18th, 2006 at 12:18 am
Damn, you are both right. The Jack Straw link has been corrected, the Richard Burden one is below:
http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmordbk1/60317w01.htm
I know why the Richard Burden one broke, because it’s something I’ve complained to the Parliamentary authorities about before - they put up the Order Paper (with the questions for the day) at one address on the day of publication, and then they move it later on. On the day that it goes up, the Parliamentary search engine can’t access it either. It’s quite frankly ridiculous.
I assume that must be true for all the pages that go up - on the day they are uploaded they go to one address, and they are aggregated later on to the main server. That would explain why the Jack Straw one broke as well…
Red Tamarin said this on March 18th, 2006 at 6:53 am
Yes, thanks, all in all there are some interesting questions facing straw.
I would simply like to point out that this incident in Jericho is consistent with a decision being taken by the US, UK and Israel to “get tough” with Hamas. The actual level of co-ordination between the three parties is irrelevant.
I still believe that the key thing is that Straw has mislead the House of Commons in that he is not owning up to being part of this strategy (softly softly with the Israelis and hard and tough with the Palestinians) because it is clearly a partisan decision that is being taken against the long term interests of this country.
Straw and others may or may not point to the absence of signatures on the treaty, however regardless of this I still believe there was both a legal and moral responsibility to continue to apply a verbal agreement that had been implemented for a number of years.
TheVoleStrangler said this on March 18th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
The “inspectors” were said to be ex cops, army officers on approx £80 K per annum (no doubt paid in a tax haven). One assumes, if dismissed they got a final pay in lieu of notice etc., etc.,with a strict confidentiality clause.
It is apparent that security was lax if none existent and the PLFP had the run of the place … as the Israelis said publicly they would kill Ahmad Sa’adat he was safer there than on the outside.
The talk of security threat to monitors was devious nonsense, a carefully arranged build up of IDF IAF forces was planned, US withdrawal the previous day and the UK withdrawal in the morning.
Straw is simply lying. As is his girlfriend Condi.
The Ramallah “agreement” was simply the LCD of the real politik which diplospeak is used to cover up the temporary arrangements. If you wish it could be seen as an “Ace up the sleeve” to be played as and when (ie prior to election) the Israeli powers wished it.
ziz said this on March 20th, 2006 at 1:46 am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1731754,00.html
Meanwhile the squeeze is on the PA:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article352378.ece
The Vole Strangler said this on March 21st, 2006 at 1:24 am
I’d just like to do the “I told you so” post.
Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date the Ramallah Agreement concerning the ending of the siege of the Palestinian presidential compound and the detention of prisoners to Jericho Prison was signed by (a) representatives of the Government of Israel and (b) representatives of the Palestinian Authority. [59762]
Dr. Howells: The Ramallah Agreement was agreed by the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority on 30 April 2002. The actual document is unsigned.
Red Tamarin said this on March 24th, 2006 at 1:06 am