Editorial (March 5, 2010)

The fallout from the passport scandal

FROM James Bond to Jason Bourne, from Mata Hari to Mission Impossible, it seems we have a hunger for stories of spies and secret agents that is never satisfied. Murder, theft and deception dominate their daily lives, the rules of morality that underpin the foundations of civil society are abandoned, and yet — at least as far as fictional protagonists are concerned — we revel in their exploits and hail them as heroes.

In the real world, however, our attitude towards espionage is perhaps a little more circumspect. We know it goes on, we know for our security it has to go on and, when the interests of our own nation are being served, we welcome the results. But as for how those ends are achieved, the morally dubious details that thrill us on the big screen are, in reality, those we’d often prefer to be kept in the dark about.

Covert operations should remain covert, lest we as individuals and law-abiding citizens be compromised by our knowledge of what goes on to keep us safe.

In recent weeks, the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh and the ensuing investigation has played out along the lines of a Hollywood blockbuster, the drama of his death overshadowed by revelation after revelation, with fresh twists and turns unfolding on the public stage.

At the heart of the allegations is the Mossad, for so long respected internationally as the ultimate intelligence agency, and revered by the Jewish community, in particular, as one of the principal bulwarks protecting Israel from the multifarious threats it faces from the outside world.

If the agency is indeed responsible, as so many would rightly or wrongly have us believe, one is inevitably forced to ask how the covert has become so overt. Was it simply sloppiness?

But that is just one of many as yet unanswered questions, both factual and moral, surrounding this entire affair. In what circumstances, if any, are state-sanctioned assassinations justified? Was the Mossad indeed behind al-Mabhouh’s death? Who else could have been responsible for the operation? How were the passports in question obtained? Why were the identities of real civilians used? What of the false papers in al-Mabhouh’s possession?

If the Mossad were behind the assassination, why risk incurring the wrath of one of Israel’s closest friends and allies? Why would two of their agents have headed to Iran, of all places? Has the very public posturing by our own government been excessive? Do other countries’ intelligence agencies, including our own, have the same modus operandi currently being ascribed to the Mossad? What are the implications for future relations between Australia and Israel? Was last weekend’s UN abstention indicative of a sea change?

As yet, there are few answers, merely thousands of words of conjecture. Much of that, as we know, has to a greater or lesser extent, implicitly or explicitly, followed the “99 per cent, if not 100 per cent that Mossad is standing behind the murder” line, trotted out by Dubai’s police chief.

Far too little, meanwhile, has been made of who al-Mabhouh was — a known terrorist with blood on his hands, committed to, and facilitating, the murder of more innocent civilians.

The pat response to media coverage that nothing has yet been proven, while true, offers little consolation against the onslaught of opinion and apparent evidence to support the allegations. Of equal concern are some of the tangential lines of thought emanating from the discussion: claims expressed, for example, that Israel uses the Holocaust as an excuse to justify state-sanctioned murder; or cartoons that draw a parallel between Israel stealing identities and Israel stealing land. The debate is spilling over into areas that increase the discomfort of a community, already ill at ease over daily headlines questioning the integrity of a country it holds dear to its heart.

Of course, as Australians we also share the disquiet felt by our government over any abuse of our passports, and we commend both its commitment to uncovering the truth, as well as the measured response from our communal leadership in supporting the investigation while refusing — in the words of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry president Robert Goot — to “draw conclusions or make comments in a climate of speculation and conjecture”.

How long it will take for the facts of the case to emerge remains to be seen. But ultimately, this is not a James Bond or Jason Bourne movie. It will not be resolved in 90 minutes. We can, nonetheless, hope for a satisfactory ending — that the rhetoric of the past few days will not fundamentally undermine relations between Australia and Israel — a close, longstanding friendship that, despite any diplomatic differences at the current time, all sides should work hard to maintain.