VIDEO: African Proverbs- Lifelines: The Black Book of Proverbs Trailer

LifelinesProverbs | January 07, 2011 |  likes, 0 dislikes

A video promoting the inspirational book, Lifelines: The Black Book of Proverbs by Askhari Johnson Hodari and Yvonne McCalla Sobers

URL: www.LifelinesProverbs.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/LifelinesTheBlackBookOfProverbs

"From advice you wish your mother had given you to things you probably suspected but had never put into words, Lifelines is a book to be read, to be absorbed, and to be treasured." —Pearl Cleage, author of What Looks Like Crazy on an Ordinary Day

LIFLINES is available for purchase at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-a-Million, Borders and wherever books are sold.

"Yvonne McCalla Sobers and Askhari Johnson Hodari have offered us a rare treasure." -- The Archbishop Desmond Tutu 

ISBN # 9780767931205 
www.LifelinesProverbs.com
Music arranged by Tommy Fluker

 

VIDEO: Tradition is a Temple: a motion picture new orleans music.

TRADITION IS A TEMPLE

a motion picture of New Orleans music | ARTIST OWNED PRODUCTION

 

Watch the Trailer

TRADITION IS A TEMPLE  explores New Orleans’ unique musical culture and the fragility of tradition in the modern world. The movie weaves together intimate personal discussions shot over a four year span with once-in-a-lifetime studio performances by New Orleans greats, such as Shannon Powell, Lucien Barbarin, Jason Marsalis, Topsy Chapman, Steve Masakowski, Ed Petersen, Roland Guerin, The Tremé Brass Band and many more.

This portrait of New Orleans music culture highlights the musician’s upbringing, how tradition shaped their identity and continues to inspire young people today.

We’re currently fundraising for post-production costs through a crowd funding website called Kickstarter.com. Please consider pre-ordering the DVD or Motion Picture Soundtrack by making a pledge. This is your chance to make this film happen. To learn more about our Kickstarter.com campaign click here.

Early supporters include The University of New Orleans, The New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Foundation, The Allan Houston Legacy Foundation and The Idea Village.

This is an artist-owned production.

 

 

PUB: Glass Woman Prize

The Ninth Glass Woman Prize reading period is now in effect, from September 22, 2010 through March 21, 2011.  Please see guidelines below. - 

To see past winning and top stories click here.

 

The beautiful illustration on this page:  "A Continuous Celebration of All Things Wonderful" by Marta L. Sanchez, www.poetryandart.org, reproduced by generous permission of the amazing artist.

 

GUIDELINES FOR The ninth Glass Woman Prize:  

The Ninth Glass Woman Prize will be awarded for a work of short fiction or creative non-fiction (prose) written by a woman.  Length: between 50 and 5,000 words.  The top prize for the ninth Glass Woman Prize award is US $500 and possible (but not obligatory) online publication; there will also be one runner up prize of $100 and one runner up prize of $50, together with possible (but not obligatory) online publication. 

In addition, there will be two further Anonymous Angel awards of $100 each, thanks to a generous donation from a Canadian woman author who wishes to remain anonymous. 

 

Subject is open, but must be of significance to women.  The criterion is passion, excellence, and authenticity in the woman’s writing voice.  Previously published work and simultaneous submissions are OK.  Copyright is retained by the author. 

 

There is no reading fee.  

 

Previous winners are welcome to submit again for any subsequent prize.

 

Submission deadline:   March 21, 2011 (receipt date; anything received after that date will be considered for a future prize).  Notification date:  on or before June 21, 2011.  

 

The winners will be announced on this web page.  Submissions will not be returned, rejected, or otherwise acknowledged except for the winner and results announcement on this web page.  I promise that every submission will be read with respect and with commitment to the voices of women in this world. 

 

Only one submission per person per submission period, by email, with "Glass Woman Prize Submission" in the subject line and the text pasted in the body of the email (no attachments!*) to:

glasswomanprize@gmail.com

Starting with the Eighth Glass Woman Prize, I no longer accept postal mail submissions. 

 

IMPORTANT:  

-    "Glass Woman Prize Submission" in subject line
-    Text in body of email
-    Please put your email address in the body of the email as well

 

I will regretfully ignore and delete submissions of anything other than specified above, for example: submissions with any kind of attachment*, more than one piece of writing in a given prize reading period, more than 5,000 words, poetry, plays, or submissions without "Glass Woman Prize Submission" in the subject line of the email. 

*Please note that some fancy email stationery comes across as attachment; almost all illustrations come across as attachments; please do not use them.

 

Some additional information

 

Who judges the contest?

 

At the moment I am the final judge, but many women writers volunteer to read submissions and make preliminary selections.  I am very happy about this because my personal tastes and passions will no longer be the sole criteria for selecting future winners.  

 

How is the prize funded?

 

The prize is funded with ten percent of my personal income.  It is therefore likely to change in the future.  

 

Why?

 

Because this is something I would have liked to have received for myself.   Since I haven’t, at least not recently, and in order to make things right with the world all the same, I feel I have to offer it to someone else.

 

Why the name Glass Woman Prize?

 

I’ve been playing with the glass woman concept for a while.  I want women to be able to acknowledge, transparently, who we are, and that who we are is not trivial and unimportant, despite the fact that it is not typically rewarded in a man-made and money-motivated world. 

 

Here’s my original description of a glass woman as I would depict her if I were a visual artist:  a woman of glass, with a blood system and gut system visible inside her, pipes and veins, and in those there would be bits of poetry, newspapers, roses, sentimental things, baby’s teeth, locks of baby hair, all kinds of lace bits, birds, and foxes, ice-picks, wedding rings, veils, and wedding cake doves, graduations gowns, tarot cards, sacred stones, pressed flowers, and a whole lot of joy and a whole lot of sorrow. She’d have a flute and a piano key, an ankh,  everything, anger and joy, hope, hiking gear, rock climbing gear, motorcycle gear, dirt, fear, bras, lilacs, mirrors, underwear.

 

What about the brittleness of glass?  I would make it unbreakable glass, of course: transparent, but shatter-proof. 

 

Kathee from Golden, Colorado provided the following additional food for thought about the mysterious quality of glass:

 

Glass is tremendously mysterious, neither solid nor liquid; the scientific world, at least, still does not know quite what to make of it, but suspects that even beyond its practical and nurturing ability to allow light through yet keep the harsh elements out, glass promises further understanding regarding the very nature of how things interact:

from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/science/29glass.html:

“They’re the thickest and gooiest of liquids and the most disordered and structureless of rigid solids,” said Peter Harrowell, a professor of chemistry at the University of Sydney in Australia, speaking of glasses, which can be formed from different raw materials. “They sit right at this really profound sort of puzzle.”

Philip W. Anderson a Nobel Prize-winning physicist at Princeton, wrote in 1995: “The deepest and most interesting unsolved problem in solid state theory is probably the theory of the nature of glass and the glass transition.”

 

Why no reading fee?

 

Because I absolutely hate the way every other journal or other entity nowadays uses reading fees for contests as fundraisers.  I can see their point.  I still hate it. 

 

What am I trying to accomplish with this?

 

I want to help along the cause of women expressing themselves authentically and fearlessly and passionately.  It has something to do with a contribution to justice and soul growing in the world. 

One of my ex-husbands once said that women don't support each other.  I want to either change that or prove it wrong.  This is my small gesture of changing the world. 

 

PUB: Eastern Carolina Writing group, Carteret Writers, Inc. Morehead City, NC Writing Contest 2011

Carteret Writers Annual Writing Contest  

 

Our annual writing contest offers five categories:

 

Fiction (short story or book chapter)

Poetry

Nonfiction

Writing for Children

Flash Fiction

Winners will receive a cash award and publication in “The Shoal”, printed by Carteret Writers, Inc.

Members of Carteret Writers also receive a free copy of the SHOAL.

Entry fees:

Members       -       $ 5 / entry

Non-members  -  $ 10 / entry

( Note: 1 poem = 1 entry )

 

 

NOTE: If you plan to submit several entries, consider joining Carteret Writers for the reduced entry fees and a copy of the SHOAL.

________________________________

Carteret Writers, Inc.

Twentieth Annual Writing Contest,

2011 Guidelines

 

Contest opens to entries January 1, 2011.   The contest is open to all writers.

Contest ends Tuesday, March 8, 2011, at the conclusion of the general membership meeting. 

 categories and submission criteria:

1. Flash Fiction: 750 words (approximately 3 pages) or less. 

2. Fiction: 3,000 words (approximately 12 pages) or less. May be a short story; chapter, abstracted portion of a chapter, summary, synopsis, excerpt or format of author’s choice. Multiple entries may not be from the same book.

3. Nonfiction: 3,000 words (approximately 12 pages) or less. May be an essay; article; chapter, abstracted portion of a chapter, summary, synopsis, excerpt or format of author’s choice. Multiple entries may not be from the same book.

4. Poetry: 50 lines or less per poem.

5. Writing for children: 2,000 words (approximately 8 pages) or less. Manuscripts must be suitable for children under the age of 13.

All entries must be text only – no illustrations of any kind.

 Awards to be given in each category:

            First place: $100 and a plaque *

            Second place: $50

            Third place: $25

* Plaques must be received at the awards dinner; none will be mailed. First, Second, Third Place and winners will be published in Carteret Writers’ literary journal, Shoal.  Honorable Mention entries will have the option of being published in Shoal.  Authors of winning entries must submit an electronic copy of their entries. Because of the cash prizes, copies of the Shoal are not included as a prize, but are available for purchase. (NOTE: Members of Carteret Writers receive a copy as part of their membership benefit.)

Note: A minimum of ten entries from ten different authors is required for a category to be judged. If this requirement is not met, the category will be eliminated and the entry fee will be refunded.

 Fees: Carteret Writers' members: $5.00 per entry

Non-members: $10.00 per entry

Checks payable to Carteret Writers must be included with entries at time of submission.  No cash accepted.

Note:If you submit multiple entries, consider a $30 membership in Carteret Writers, Inc. if it will reduce your costs. This also includes a free copy of the Shoal.  Send S.A.S.E. for membership application or download from our web site. All memberships expire June 30 of each year.

 Guidelines:

Submit two copies of each entry with one cover sheet. Entries must be unpublished at time of submission, typed on one side of 8-1/2 by 11 white paper, double-spaced (except poetry), with 1 inch margins all around. Use a fixed width 12 pt. font such as Courier New. Do not use a proportional font, such as Times New Roman. The author’s name must NOT appear anywhere within the manuscript. Do not enclose your manuscript in a folder or hard cover of any kind. Entries may be stapled. 

Manuscripts not adhering to the guidelines will be disqualified. Entry fees will not be refunded.

Cover sheet: Each entry must be accompanied by a separate cover sheet.  See the last page of this document for a sample.  Multiple entries are NOT to be listed on the same cover sheet.  The cover sheet must provide ALL the following information:

Category, Title, Number of words (or poetry lines), Author’s name,

Mailing address, phone number and email address.  The statement of

originality and liability release must be included and signed.

 

The second and subsequent pages of each entry must have the entry category, a short version of the title, and the page number.  DO NOT include the author’s name or any personal information on any page of the manuscript.

All manuscripts except first, second, and third place will be available for pickup at the awards dinner. If not picked up at that time, they will not be returned.

 

Judging will be BLIND, conducted by published authors, journalists or other professionals in the field of writing who are not members of Carteret Writers. Criteria are originality and literary quality.  All decisions by the judges are final.

Hand delivered entries may be submitted at the January, February, or March meetings of Carteret Writers, on the second Tuesday of each month.  Meetings are held at Golden Corral Restaurant in Morehead City at 11:30 a.m. Visitors are welcome.

Mailed entries must REACH the Carteret Writers’ post office box by March 8, 2011. 

Address to: 

Writing Contest

Carteret Writers, Inc.

P.O. Box 2284

Morehead City, NC  28557

 

Awards Dinner: Tuesday, May 10, 2011, 6:00 p.m. at the Golden Corral, 4060 Arendell St., Morehead City, NC.  Dinner is pay-as-you-go (not included).  We meet in room #1, the larger room to the right after the cashier.  Activities begin at 6:45 p.m.

Winners' names will be posted on our web site, carteretwriters.org, soon after the awards dinner.

 

Questions?  Please contact Keith Laughinghouse at LaughinghouseKeith@yahoo.com

                         or Douglas Hayes at djhayes29@hotmail.com

 

PUB: The Bevel Summers Prize for the Short Short Story :: Washington and Lee University

The Bevel Summers Prize for the Short Short Story

The Bevel Summers Prize in the Short Short Story is open to all authors of stories of up to 1,000 words. Stories should be sent to Bevel Summers/Shenandoah, Mattingly House, 2 Lee Ave., Washington and Lee University, Lexington, VA 24450 and must be received by March 31. Send two copies, one with name and contact information, including e-mail address, and a duplicate with no identifying information, along with an sase for notification. The winner will receive a $250 prize and be featured prominently on Shenandoah's first online issue. There is no entry fee for the 2011 contest. A judge has not yet been selected.

via wlu.edu

 

WIKILEAKS: New Book—Inside WikiLeaks

Daniel Domscheit-Berg: Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World's Most Dangerous Website

 

The publisher provided this product description: Former WikiLeaks Insider and Spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg Authors an Exposé of the “World’s Most Dangerous Website.” In an eye-opening account, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the former spokesman of WikiLeaks, reveals never-disclosed details about the inner workings of the increasingly controversial organization that has struck fear into governments and business organizations worldwide and prompted the Pentagon to convene a 120-man task force. In addition to Germany and the U.S., Inside WikiLeaks will be published simultaneously in 12 other countries. Under the pseudonym Daniel Schmitt, Domscheit-Berg was the effective No. 2 at WikiLeaks and the organization’s most public face, after Julian Assange. In this book, he reveals the evolution, finances, and inner tensions of the whistleblower organization, beginning with his first meeting with Assange in December 2007. He also describes what led to his September 2010 withdrawal from WikiLeaks, including his disenchantment with the organization’s lack of transparency, its abandonment of political neutrality, and Assange’s increasing concentration of power. What has been made public so far about WikiLeaks is only a small fraction of the truth. With Domscheit-Berg’s insider knowledge, he is uniquely able to tell the full story. A computer scientist who worked in IT security prior to devoting himself full-time to WikiLeaks, he remains committed to freedom of information on the Internet. Today he is working on a more transparent secret-sharing website called OpenLeaks, developed by former WikiLeaks people, to be launched in early 2011.

Daniel Domscheit-Berg (previously known under the pseudonym Daniel Schmitt) (born 1978) is a German technology activist. He is best known for his prior work as spokesperson and effective number two in WikiLeaks, a whistleblower organisation. Before working with Wikileaks, Domscheit-Berg was involved with the German hacker group the Chaos Computer Club. He is planning on opening a new website for anonymous, online leaks called OpenLeaks, in December, 2010. A novel about his experience and separation from WikiLeaks is planned for release in Germany in January, 2011, titled "Inside WikiLeaks: My Time at the World's Most Dangerous Website". An English translation is expected in April 2011 by Australian publisher Scribe Publications. Among the criticisms Domscheit-Berg mentions are an organization culture which was too centered around the figure of one individual, head of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, an authoritarian style which was contrary to the transparency-focused mission of the organization, and a rush to unleash big news stories in lieu of steadily building up the organization. Domscheit-Berg is highlighted in the Swedish Sveriges Television (Swedens' Television) programme, WikiRebels - The Documentary, released in the second week of December 2010.

From Tech Crunch: As WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange stews in a British jail, with a U.S. indictment reportedly imminent on top of the alleged Swedish sex crimes he was arrested for in the first place, some of his former staffers are already preparing to launch a competing site for whistleblowers called OpenLeaks. The new site will be headed up by Daniel Domscheit-Berg, Assange’s former right-hand man who left last September, after bristling under Assange’s autocratic ways. OpenLeaks will be structured a bit differently than WikiLeaks. It will be designed to accept leaks in a secure and anonymous manner, but won’t publish them itself. Instead, OpenLeaks will work with other publishers, including newspapers and websites around the world, which will asses the newsworthiness of any leaked documents, and edit and redact them as appropriate before releasing them. In this way, OpenLeaks hopes to address one of the biggest early criticisms against WikiLeaks: that it publishes sensitive documents indiscriminately without regard for the safety of people who may be mentioned in those documents. This was certainly the case with the Afghanistan war documents, and is one of the main reason why the WikiLeaks defectors set up OpenLeaks. In an online chat at the time, in reference to the way Assange handled the first leak of Afghanistan war documents, Domscheit-Berg accused him of behaving “like some kind of emperor or slave trader.”

From The Australian: A defector from the WikiLeaks website has spoken of a siege mentality within an organisation run by its founder, Julian Assange, allegedly as a personal fiefdom. In an interview with The Times the German defector gave a blistering insider's insight into the workings of WikiLeaks, which appears to operate as secretly as the institutions that it infiltrates. Until this month "Daniel Schmitt" was the second most public face of WikiLeaks after Mr Assange, giving hundreds of interviews in defence of the organisation's mission to put classified documents directly on the internet. This was his first interview with the international media since breaking cover at the weekend. He has dropped his pseudonym and now uses his real name, Daniel Domscheit-Berg. He is 32, a former hacker and lives in the Prenzlauer Berg district of Berlin with his wife, an expert on e-governance. Initially, the WikiLeaks experiment was hailed as a turning point in investigative journalism and Mr Domscheit-Berg, as its press spokesman, was at the helm. Then things started to go wrong. "The aim of the platform when it started in 2006 was to inform intelligent people and supply them with a basis of solid facts for intelligent decisions," he told The Times. "But it became a problem as soon as we started to take sides."

 

 

 

EVENT: Seattle—Heidi W. Durrow: The Girl Who Fell from the Sky « CD Forum

Heidi W. Durrow: The Girl Who Fell from the Sky

The Girl Who Fell from the Sky
by Heidi W. Durrow

Thursday, January 13 2011 at 7:00pm
at Northwest African American Museum
2300 South Massachusetts Street (Map)
Tickets: $10 door | $7 advance | $5 students |  Buy Online!

This debut novel tells the story of Rachel, the daughter of a Danish mother and a black G.I. who becomes the sole survivor of a family tragedy. An unfathomable past that explores issues of identity at a time when many people are asking must race confine us and define us?

Co-presented by Elliott Bay Bookstore

Buy your copy of the book at Elliott Bay Bookstore

See Heidi W. Durrow’s website

UPCOMING APPEARANCES

Heidi W. Durrow
photo: Frank Stewart
  • January 11, 2011 7PM

    Portland, OR: Broadway Books. View info

  • January 13, 2011 7PM

    Seattle, WA: NW African American Museum. View info

  • Jan. 14, 2011 12:30PM

    Seattle, WA: Costco. View info

 

OP-ED: The Texas Omen - NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Columnist

The Texas Omen

These are tough times for state governments. Huge deficits loom almost everywhere, from California to New York, from New Jersey to Texas.

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Paul Krugman

Wait — Texas? Wasn’t Texas supposed to be thriving even as the rest of America suffered? Didn’t its governor declare, during his re-election campaign, that “we have billions in surplus”? Yes, it was, and yes, he did. But reality has now intruded, in the form of a deficit expected to run as high as $25 billion over the next two years.

And that reality has implications for the nation as a whole. For Texas is where the modern conservative theory of budgeting — the belief that you should never raise taxes under any circumstances, that you can always balance the budget by cutting wasteful spending — has been implemented most completely. If the theory can’t make it there, it can’t make it anywhere.

How bad is the Texas deficit? Comparing budget crises among states is tricky, for technical reasons. Still, data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggest that the Texas budget gap is worse than New York’s, about as bad as California’s, but not quite up to New Jersey levels.

The point, however, is that just the other day Texas was being touted as a role model (and still is by commentators who haven’t been keeping up with the news). It was the state the recession supposedly passed by, thanks to its low taxes and business-friendly policies. Its governor boasted that its budget was in good shape thanks to his “tough conservative decisions.”

Oh, and at a time when there’s a full-court press on to demonize public-sector unions as the source of all our woes, Texas is nearly demon-free: less than 20 percent of public-sector workers there are covered by union contracts, compared with almost 75 percent in New York.

So what happened to the “Texas miracle” many people were talking about even a few months ago?

Part of the answer is that reports of a recession-proof state were greatly exaggerated. It’s true that Texas job losses haven’t been as severe as those in the nation as a whole since the recession began in 2007. But Texas has a rapidly growing population — largely, suggests Harvard’s Edward Glaeser, because its liberal land-use and zoning policies have kept housing cheap. There’s nothing wrong with that; but given that rising population, Texas needs to create jobs more rapidly than the rest of the country just to keep up with a growing work force.

And when you look at unemployment, Texas doesn’t seem particularly special: its unemployment rate is below the national average, thanks in part to high oil prices, but it’s about the same as the unemployment rate in New York or Massachusetts.

What about the budget? The truth is that the Texas state government has relied for years on smoke and mirrors to create the illusion of sound finances in the face of a serious “structural” budget deficit — that is, a deficit that persists even when the economy is doing well. When the recession struck, hitting revenue in Texas just as it did everywhere else, that illusion was bound to collapse.

The only thing that let Gov. Rick Perry get away, temporarily, with claims of a surplus was the fact that Texas enacts budgets only once every two years, and the last budget was put in place before the depth of the economic downturn was clear. Now the next budget must be passed — and Texas may have a $25 billion hole to fill. Now what?

Given the complete dominance of conservative ideology in Texas politics, tax increases are out of the question. So it has to be spending cuts.

Yet Mr. Perry wasn’t lying about those “tough conservative decisions”: Texas has indeed taken a hard, you might say brutal, line toward its most vulnerable citizens. Among the states, Texas ranks near the bottom in education spending per pupil, while leading the nation in the percentage of residents without health insurance. It’s hard to imagine what will happen if the state tries to eliminate its huge deficit purely through further cuts.

I don’t know how the mess in Texas will end up being resolved. But the signs don’t look good, either for the state or for the nation.

Right now, triumphant conservatives in Washington are declaring that they can cut taxes and still balance the budget by slashing spending. Yet they haven’t been able to do that even in Texas, which is willing both to impose great pain (by its stinginess on health care) and to shortchange the future (by neglecting education). How are they supposed to pull it off nationally, especially when the incoming Republicans have declared Medicare, Social Security and defense off limits?

People used to say that the future happens first in California, but these days what happens in Texas is probably a better omen. And what we’re seeing right now is a future that doesn’t work.

 

HAITI: An insider's critique of what went wrong in Haiti | Al Jazeera Blogs

By Gabriel Elizondo in on January 8th, 2011.
Ricardo Seitenfus during interview in Brasilia with Al Jazeera. Photo: Maria Elena Romero/Al Jazeera

You will be hard pressed to find a man anywhere more passionate about the plight of the Haitian people than Ricardo Seitenfus. The Brazilian professor of international affairs first went to Haiti in 1993 and the warmth of the Haitian people – combined with their immense struggle - has been drawing Seitenfus back to the island nation like a magnet ever since his first trip. Seitenfus has authored a book about the country, as well over a dozen other publications about international affairs. (His personal web site, in Portuguese, can be viewed by clicking here.) Seitenfus feels so connected to Haiti, he often doesn’t even realise he refers to the country as “we,” not as “they” or “it.”

Since 2009 Seitenfus has been working in Haiti on behalf of the Organization of American States. As the Special Representative of the OAS Secretary General, Seitenfus was one of the country’s top foreign diplomats.

But Seitenfus is a man who will tell you he is a professor, not a diplomat, and he feels it’s his obligation to speak out about injustice and wrongdoing when he sees it. And with over 1 million people still living in inhumane conditions in tent cities, and by some estimates more than 4 million without basic services, and almost no reconstruction started, it doesn’t take Winston Churchill to figure out everything is not quite going right in Haiti.

In the past year few who hold positions in power in the international community inside the country have dared to ask tough questions of themselves.  But Seitenfus did. In an interview with a Swiss newspaper LeTemps published 5 days before Christmas, Seitenfus said – in essence - perhaps the problem in Haiti is not so much with Haitian people, but with the advise the UN, OAS, and NGOs have been giving Haiti.

The same day the interview was published, he apparently was asked by the OAS to get lost. The incident passed without much notice in the press. The obvious question: Was he fired for simply speaking truth to power and blasting the U.N. and NGOs?  To her great credit Georgianne Nienaber did ask that very question in a Huffington Post article. Also, Haitilibre.com has also been on top of the story, among a lot of the blogosphere.

Al Jazeera producer Rima Davoudi tracked-down Seitenfus after he left Haiti and I caught up with him this week in Brazil’s capital, Brasilia, for a sit down interview; it is his first interview with an international broadcast network since his forced exile from Haiti.

Below is the transcript of the interview, which was conducted in Portuguese, and which was trimmed slightly for length and clarity.

Is Seitenfus a man who deserves to be let go by the OAS? Or is he a man who is simply speaking truth that some don't want to hear?

You read it. You be the judge.  

 Excerpts of the interview will begin airing on Al Jazeera Sunday, January 9 as part of the kick-off of several days of special coverage on Haiti one year after the earthquake.    

 Gabriel Elizondo: In your view, were you fired from your job as Special Representative to the Secretary General of the OAS in Haiti?

 Ricardo Seitenfus: No. Contracts are generally one year in length with the OAS. So my contract was about to expire. However, I thought I had a contract until March 2011. So even though it’s one year contracts, it was assumed my contract would be extended at least until that point of March which would perhaps allow me to see through the current political situation…I wanted to stay in Haiti until the process of the elections is over. I did not want to leave Haiti. I don't want to be on vacation right now. But on December 20 -coincidentally the same day my interview was published in the Swiss newspaper…I received a phone call from the Security General of the OAS, Jose Miguel Insulza, asking me to go on vacation. I wasn’t planning to go on vacation because we are going through an electoral crisis that has political consequences, and I thought it was a matter good judgment and professional responsibility that I - as the Chief of the Representation of the OAS from Brazil and as this Special Representative of the OAS - stayed in Haiti during this period. But he (Sec. General Insulza) asked me to go on vacation. And he also informed me that when I returned from my vacation at the end of January 2011, I would not continue in my position. So I image, in a certain way, my period in Haiti, instead of being extended until March 31, 2011 like anticipated and talked about before, will be done on the 30th of January 2011.

 Gabriel Elizondo: So, just to be clear, do you work for the OAS right now?

 Ricardo Seitenfus: I am on vacation until 30 of January. So I assume until that date I am a functionary of the OAS, but from what I understood, I no longer speak on behalf of the OAS.

A Haitian woman standing in front of tents over 1 million people still call home 1 year after the earthquake. Photo: Maria Elena Romero/Al Jazeera.

Gabriel Elizondo: Your main criticism of the U.N.’s work in Haiti is that they put too much of a focus on security. Explain what you mean.

 Ricardo Seitenfus: I believe the international system of prevention and solution of conflicts is not prepared to treat specific cases such as Haiti. Haiti is not a threat to international security. It is not a threat to regional security. It’s not a threat to Cuba or the Dominican Republic. Haiti doesn’t even have armed forces…. With relation to the UN, I ask myself if we’re not just fooling ourselves. Wouldn’t it be better if the counsel of social and economic development oversees Haiti and would have priority, instead of the council on security? Haiti is not a threat to international peace and security. Haiti is a threat to itself and its own people…The life of the Haitian people is hard. Especially after the earthquake. After the quake we have 1.5 million people that are still living under tents in the parks and in the streets. I imaged that after January 12, 2010, the world would not only show that extraordinary solidarity to help Haiti, but it would also say, ‘Let’s stop and think if we are not mis-diagnosing Haiti with wrong formulas.’ But no, we didn’t ask that question. What we did was to send more soldiers in. So I think Haiti is much more complicated and much more delicate and multifaceted than simply sending peace keeping forces of the UN to image that Haiti can be rescued from the situation. The presence of the military is contradictory and counter-intuitive with me without talking about the moral questions. With MINUSTAH (U.N. peacekeeping forces in Haiti), we spent $600 million dollars per year this year. $865 million dollars this year alone, I think. That is besides what every member of MINUSTAH spends. So I believe we need to do a balance sheet - an audit almost - to take stock of how we have advanced in this last 6 and half years and to make a new strategy with relation to Haiti. I think we fool ourselves with who the real enemy here. The enemy of Haiti is misery, is lack of hope, the lack of perspective, lack of work, lack of income. Not security.”

 

File 4304

A Haitian woman and her child in a camp in Port-au-Prince. Photo: Maria Elena Romero/Al Jazeera

Gabriel Elizondo: Haiti is a complex country, and isn’t there plenty of blame to go around?

Ricardo Seitenfus: What is the problem of Haiti? This is what I call a conflict of low intensity, where the political actors, in their fight for power, do not respect the rules of the ‘democratic game.’ There have been at least 8 interventions by the international community and the U.N. into Haiti. Clearly there is a problem in Haiti, but there is also a problem we have on the model of our presence in Haiti. Otherwise we would not have to return 7 or 8 times to intervene in Haiti in a period of 20 years! I believe the international system is not prepared to deal with the issue of Haiti. Besides that, we are in Haiti trying to make Haitian's learn the lessons of democracy. And what  kind of conclusions can we draw from our efforts? Is it possible to have democracy when there is 80% unemployment? When 50% of the population lives in misery, on less than $1 a day? When practically there is no state to organize the public force of society? And the fact we are now in this situation regarding elections, is not a result because Haitians and the political actors in Haiti are opposed to democracy. They are just against the process that leads to democracy. They question that process we are imposing on them…Many of the countries of the world that came out of colonial rule established democracies, liberties, and guarantees amongst political actors defining the ‘rules of the democratic game’ to get to power. Things like multi-party systems, freedom of the press, freedom of thought and association, amnesties. And all this plays a role in making a national agreement to start a new history in the country. Haiti did none of this. Haiti’s political actors signed no deal. And in some ways, without organizing democracy, they keep us - the international community - and also and more importantly, the Haiti people, as hostage. In a certain way, we in the international community in the past 20 years, we go to Haiti not because of misery, not because of abandoned children, we go there only when there are political problems, not even security problems, but political problems! So I think it is fundamental the international community and United Nations make an effort, and the OAS together with the political actors, to establish this kind of ‘democratic deal.’ Without that deal the Haitian people and the international community will be forever hostage to the different political groups in Haiti.

 

File 4296

Thousands of people gathered outside the collapsed presidential palace in Port-au-Prince. Photo: Maria Elena Romero/Al Jazeera

Gabriel Elizondo: The NGO relief organizations have a huge presence in Haiti. What are your misgivings about their work in Haiti?

Ricardo Seitenfus: The NGOs did an extraordinary job in the day’s right after the earthquake, and should be commended. But the tendency for the NGOs was to lay down roots in Haiti. And in a certain way, some governments, and the world population in general, made huge donations to Haiti via NGOs that never reached the Haitian people. So in certain ways the situation in Haiti is the same or has not changed. We have hundreds of millions of dollars in the hands of the NGOs without any sort of social control, without any transparency, or government management. And we are accusing the government of Haiti of being corrupt when the government of Haiti doesn’t even have money in their hands to be corrupt with! We can not demand from Haiti what we do not demand for ourselves…We can attempt to create a new model of state and to make Haiti a labratory of experiences but we have to stop Haiti becoming ‘Haiti-NGO,’ that means a country of NGOs. That is unacceptable for us. And that is unacceptable for Haitians and for the history of Haiti. All projects that come in to Haiti that weaken even more the weak Haitian state, should be discarded. We should accept only projects that bring resources for the institutions of Haiti to be strengthened, and for Haiti to effectively respond to the needs of dealing internally with their inequities… We can not make of Haiti a ‘Disneyland’ of the NGOs. And I think this it the time to say to the NGOs: ‘Stop! This is a sovereign country, a country that needs to be respected, not only because of the country it is, but also for what it represents for the history of the world.'

Gabriel Elizondo: Do you think the international community – the NGOs, U.N., and OAS – would prefer you just shut up and not be speaking out about all this?

File 4284

Seitenfus says he is under no obligation to keep quiet, but no longer speaks on behalf of the OAS. Photo: Maria Elena Romero/Al Jazeera.

Ricardo Seitenfus: “Their preferences on what they want do not matter to me. I am on vacation right now, I guess. I imagine I am not anymore a voice of the OAS. I have no more obligations to hold back my opinions. I am a citizen. And as a citizen I have a right to speak. The problems of Haiti touch all of us, and question all of us…Haiti doesn’t deserve the present that is has today. And Haiti doesn’t deserve the disregard that the international community has for it. I think the problems in Haiti should be a priority for the OAS because this is the only country in Latin America that has peace keeping forces, and the length of a peacekeeping operation is proportional to length of its success….the longer peace keeping forces stay, the less success they are going to experience.  So I am exercising my freedom of speech. I question why we always go walking down the wrong path with Haiti. Let’s stop playing with Haiti. We must find - through dialogue with the Haitian society and Haitian state and the political parties - a formula to make this country and its people with such an extraordinary history an opportunity to get out of this degrading human situation that they are in today.

Gabriel Elizondo: Do you think things with change in relation to the international community and how it deals with Haiti?

Ricardo Seitenfus: I believe that the decisions made in international organizations are highly bureaucratic. And in a certain way, when someone inside speaks out in an open and objective manner - with supporting data - that causes fear because that could serve as verification that, for example, 60 years of help to Haiti has been a failure. The example of Haiti is not unique. It’s only one of the cases that you can take out of a series of failures of development aide in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

 

File 4300

Tens of thousands of Haitian children lost parents in the earthquake. Photo: Maria Elena Romero/Al Jazeera.

Gabriel Elizondo: Do you have hope for the future of Haiti?

Ricardo Seitenfus:  “Haitians are in charge of their destiny. If they don’t want help, nobody will be able to help them. But I think the world wants to help Haiti. Probably the international institutions in many parts of the world simply do not know how to help. And that is why right now we need to seriously take stock of where we are at right now. We need to dialogue with Haitians to find a common road to make this country leave this situation of misery that it is in today.”

With editorial assistance from Rima Davoudi, Maria Elena Romero and Douglas Engle.

 

 

INFO: State Sponsored Asassinations—The Dubai Job: Big Issues: GQ

Big Issues

The Dubai Job

One year ago, an elite Mossad hit squad traveled to Dubai to kill a high-ranking member of Hamas. They completed the mission, but their covers were blown, and Israel was humiliated by the twenty-seven-minute video of their movements that was posted online for all the world to see. Ronen Bergman reveals the intricate, chilling details of the mission and investigates how Israel's vaunted spy agency did things so spectacularly wrong

January 2011

Monday, January 18, 2010. Morning
At 6:45 a.m., the first members of an Israeli hit squad land at Dubai International Airport and fan out through the city to await further instructions. Over the next nineteen hours, the rest of the team—at least twenty-seven members—will arrive on flights from Zurich, Rome, Paris, and Frankfurt. They have come to kill a man named Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, a Hamas leader whose code name within the Mossad—the Israeli intelligence agency—is Plasma Screen.

Most of the operatives here are members of a secretive unit within the Mossad known as Caesarea, a self-contained organization that is responsible for the agency's most dangerous and critical missions: assassinations, sabotage, penetration of high-security installations. Caesarea's "fighters," as they are known, are the elite of the Mossad. They rarely interact with other operatives and stay away from Mossad headquarters north of Tel Aviv, instead undergoing intensive training at a separate facility to which no one else in the agency has access. They are forbidden from ever using their real names, even in private conversation, and—with the exception of their spouses—their families and closest friends are unaware of what they do. As one longtime Caesarea fighter recently told me, "If the Mossad is the temple of Israel's intelligence community, then Caesarea is its holy of holies."

In the course of reporting this story, GQ has learned that this is Caesarea's second attempt to kill Al-Mabhouh. On a previous trip to Dubai two months earlier, in November 2009, the same team tried to poison him. It is not known precisely how the team administered the toxin in their first attempt, though the suspicion is that they either slipped it into a drink or smeared it on one of the fixtures in his hotel room. Al-Mabhouh fell mysteriously ill but eventually recovered, and was never aware he'd been poisoned by Israeli operatives. This time, nothing will be left to chance; it has been determined in advance that the team will leave Dubai only after they have confirmed with their own eyes that Plasma Screen is dead.*

Al-Mabhouh has been on the Mossad's list of assassination targets (see box on page 40) since 1989, after he and an accomplice named Muhammad Nasser abducted and murdered two Israeli soldiers near the Negev Desert in southern Israel. In an interview he gave to the Al Jazeera network, Al-Mabhouh recalled one of those killings in detail. "We disguised ourselves as religious Jews with skullcaps on our heads like rabbis," he said. He went on to describe picking up the soldier, Avi Sasportas, at a place called Hodayah Junction and offering him a ride. "I was driving, and the door behind me was neutralized. We took care of that beforehand. I told him in Hebrew, 'Get in on the other side, the door's broken.' He walked around and sat in the back seat. I and Abu Sahib [Nasser] had a predetermined signal. We had fixed that at the right moment I would make a sign with my hand, because I could see what was happening on the road in front and behind. And indeed, about three kilometers after the crossroads I signaled to Abu Sahib. Abu Sahib shot him with his Beretta pistol. I heard him breathe heavily and die. He took two bullets in the face and one in the chest and died from the first shot. Breathed out and that's it, finished." The only thing he regretted, Al-Mabhouh said, was that he was driving the car at the time, and so it was Nasser who got to shoot the soldier in the face.

In both killings, the two men desecrated the soldiers' bodies and photographed each other stomping triumphantly on them before burying them in a ditch by the roadside. (The body of the second soldier wasn't discovered until seven years later, with the aid of a hand-drawn map that Al-Mabhouh and Nasser had sketched from memory after the killing. In a deal mediated by the Palestinian Authority, Nasser eventually handed over the sketch to Israel, and in exchange he was removed from Israel's most-wanted list.)

The need to eliminate Al-Mabhouh, however, has only intensified over time, not just out of a desire to avenge the deaths of the two soldiers but because of his longtime role in the militant activities of Hamas—financing and planning suicide bombings in Israel and the trafficking of huge amounts of rockets and sophisticated weaponry into Gaza, which have been used to devastating effect since the start of the second intifada in 2000. Support for Hamas's terrorist activities has come largely from the extremist Quds Force (part of Iran's Revolutionary Guard), with whom Al-Mabhouh has formed closer and closer ties over the years. In the mind of Mossad chief Meir Dagan, liquidating Al-Mabhouh is worth the risk of sending such a large team on a mission into a hostile country, though the wisdom of this choice will be severely questioned in the aftermath of the job.

* Israel has not confirmed—nor has it denied—that this mission was carried out by the Mossad, though no one seriously doubts that to be the case. The sequence of events described here is based largely on the exhaustive investigation conducted by the Dubai chief of police, Lieutenant General Dhahi Khalfan Tamim. In-depth interviews were conducted with former and current members of the Mossad and with high-ranking intelligence experts in Israel and Europe. The Mossad, in response to the long list of questions submitted formally by GQ, stated that it does not comment on its activities or those attributed to it.

In 1997 the Mossad tried to assassinate Khaled Mashal, the political leader of Hamas, by spraying a chemical agent on his ear as he walked down a street in Amman, Jordan. The mission failed—and the two Mossad members were captured—when Mashal turned in the street to greet his daughter at the moment the assassins sprayed the poison. In order to win the release of their operatives, Israel handed over the antidote to the poison and also freed from prison the spiritual leader and founder of Hamas, Sheikh Yassin. In a humiliating blow to the agency, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was forced to admit that the Mossad plot had been a terrible failure. For the next several years, morale within the agency plummeted, and its reputation for daring and success was tarnished.

Then, in 2002, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon tapped Dagan, a former military commander with a reputation for ruthless, brutal efficiency, to restore the spy agency to its former glory and preside over, as he put it, "a Mossad with a knife between its teeth." "Dagan's unique expertise," Sharon said in closed meetings, "is the separation of an Arab from his head." Dagan immediately announced that the Mossad would devote most of its resources to what he considered the two key threats to Israel's survival: the Iranian nuclear program and terrorism from the Iranian-supported groups Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The number and frequency of covert operations increased dramatically. There were several acts of sabotage of the Iranian nuclear program: two mysterious crashes of Iranian aircraft associated with the program, fires breaking out at two important laboratories, damage inflicted upon Iranian nuclear centrifuges, and the disappearance of two Iranian scientists and the killing of a third. There was also a mysterious explosion at a Syrian plant where Scud missiles were being fitted with chemical warheads, and the Mossad is credited with the discovery of a nuclear reactor in Syria, built with North Korean assistance, whose existence the Syrian authorities had managed to conceal for over five years. (The Syrian nuclear facility was subsequently destroyed by the Israeli Air Force in September 2007 after the United States proved reluctant to do so.)

The number of complex targeted assassinations carried out by the Mossad also increased under Dagan. The most high-profile of these was the elimination in Damascus of Imad Mughniyeh, Hezbollah's military chief. Among other terrorist acts, Mughniyeh was responsible for the bombing of the U.S. embassy and the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, and the bombings in Buenos Aires of the Israeli embassy in 1992 and a Jewish cultural center in 1994. In February 2008 his head was blown off by an explosive device that had been planted in the driver's-side headrest of his rental car. Dagan's Mossad is also believed to be responsible for the death of General Mohammed Suleiman, a close aide of Syria's President Bashar Al-Assad, who headed that country's nuclear program and handled military cooperation with Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Suleiman was killed in the Syrian city of Tartus in August 2008 by a sniper's bullet that hit him as he stood on his balcony after his daily swim. (According to other reports, he was shot by the sniper as he swam in the sea with his bodyguards.)

Because of these successes, Dagan's tenure as director of the Mossad was repeatedly extended, most recently by Benjamin Netanyahu in October 2009, and today he is one of the longest-serving directors in Israel's history. Notorious for his aggressive, verbally abusive style of leadership, he is an ideologically rigid man who, according to several people inside the organization, shows the door to anyone who dares to voice an opinion different from his. As one Mossad veteran told me, "It is extremely difficult to get your opinion heard in his presence, unless it supports his. He is unable to accept criticism or even another opinion. It's almost as if he treats his opposition like an enemy." Dagan is also reported to have stated on several occasions that he does not believe there is anyone within the Mossad today who is worthy to replace him.

Several Mossad operatives who have attended meetings in Dagan's office describe a ritual that he goes through when preparing a team for a dangerous mission. During the meeting, Dagan points to a large photograph hanging on his office wall of a bearded Jew wrapped in a prayer shawl, kneeling on the ground with his arms in the air. The man's fists are clenched, and his piercing eyes look straight ahead. Next to him stand two German SS officers, one holding a club and the other a pistol. "This man," Dagan says, "was my grandfather, Dov Ehrlich." He then explains that shortly after the photo was taken, on October 5, 1942, his grandfather was murdered by the Nazis along with his family and thousands of other Jews in the small Polish town of Lukow.

"Look at this photograph," Dagan tells the Caesarea fighters. "This is what must guide us and lead us to act on behalf of the State of Israel. I look at the picture and vow that I will do everything I can to ensure that something like this will never happen again."

* * *

Tuesday, January 19, 2010. Before dawn

The mission will be run by operatives working under the assumed names Gail Folliard, Kevin Daveron, and Peter Elvinger, who arrive in Dubai in the very early hours of the nineteenth. They immediately go to separate hotels, where Folliard and Daveron pay for their rooms in cash, but most of the other team members are using a prepaid credit card called a Payoneer, a fact that will be significant to the investigation to come. Counting the unsuccessful attempt to poison Al-Mabhouh in November, this is the team's fifth trip to Dubai in the past nine months. The purpose of the other trips was to do surveillance and to verify beyond any doubt that the man they intend to kill is indeed Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh. This is not a simple matter. Back in July 1973, a Caesarea hit team on a mission to liquidate the head of the Palestinian terrorist organization Black September—the group responsible for the murders of eleven Israeli team members at the Munich Olympics—mistakenly killed a Moroccan waiter in Lillehammer, Norway. The killers were caught and spent years in jail, and the Israeli government paid substantial damages to the victim's family. The reputation of the Mossad—and of Israel—was badly harmed by the botched mission, and since then the agency has implemented complex mechanisms to ensure that they never make such a mistake again.

Israeli spies have been monitoring Al-Mabhouh's e-mail and online activities through a Trojan horse planted on his computer (and possibly through a human source who has betrayed him, though Hamas rejects this theory), and they know he will be arriving in Dubai later today. At ten thirty, Elvinger strolls through a Dubai mall, where he is soon joined by five other team members. A little more than an hour later, their meeting breaks up and the group disperses. The only thing they can do until Al-Mabhouh's arrival is review plans and contingencies and wait to see how their target's movements unfold. As one veteran of Caesarea field operations told me, "In this type of assassination, when the target is not in his home base and is not following a daily routine, it is the target who dictates to the killers how and when he will be killed."

As far as the Mossad is concerned, there are two types of countries in the world. There are "base countries" (essentially, the West), in which the Mossad, like most other intelligence agencies, is able to operate with relative ease. In these countries, operatives have access to multiple getaway routes in case of emergency (and there are Israeli embassies to escape to as a last resort); it is assumed that if a Mossad spy is caught in a base country, a discreet solution can likely be found with the assistance of the local intelligence services—an option referred to in the Mossad as the "soft cushion"). "Target countries," however, are enemy states in which operating undercover is significantly more dangerous. There are no easy escape routes (and no friendly embassy to run to), and being caught in these countries will almost certainly result in physical torture and either a protracted jail term or, quite possibly, death. Given that Al-Mabhouh is based in Syria and that the countries he regularly visits are Iran, Sudan, and China, it makes sense that Dubai, while undeniably a target country, is the location of choice for such a mission.

* * *

Afternoon
Al-Mabhouh is expected to land in Dubai at 3 p.m. At 1:30, Kevin Daveron leaves his hotel and heads to the team's designated meeting place—the lobby of a different hotel, where none of the team members is staying, that was selected in advance for its convenient location. On the way to the meeting, he walks through the lobby of a third hotel and enters the rest­room. When he emerges, he is no longer bald but now has a full head of hair and is wearing glasses. The security camera outside the entrance to the men's and women's bathrooms was recording all of this in real time. Had an alert guard noticed what was going on, the mission might have ended quite differently, with the target alive and the team members imprisoned in a hostile country.

Gail Folliard also leaves her hotel and on her way to the meeting uses the same restroom entrance as Daveron, from which she too emerges in a wig. Oddly, Folliard and Daveron are the only ones at the meeting who have changed their appearances. Given that the operatives are under the constant gaze of security cameras throughout the city, the "new" Daveron and Folliard run the risk of being linked to the "old" Daveron and Folliard through the identity of the individuals they've met with and passed by throughout the day—the kind of mistake that is almost incomprehensible for an elite Mossad team to make.

By two thirty, there are surveillance teams located at the entrances to every hotel Al-Mabhouh has stayed at on past trips to Dubai. There is also a team posted at the airport, ready to follow him into the city.

Al-Mabhouh is also traveling under a false identity. His Palestinian passport (the Palestinian Authority issues travel documents that are not recognized for travel to most countries but are valid in Dubai) identifies him as Mahmoud Abdul Ra'ouf Mohammed and gives his occupation as a "merchant."

At three twenty-five, two men standing in the lobby of the glitzy Al Bustan Rotana Hotel, dressed in tennis gear and holding rackets, report to the command team that their target has arrived and is checking in. The news of his arrival is conveyed to all the teams waiting at the other hotels, and they now return to the central meeting place. In the Al Bustan, Al-Mabhouh takes the elevator to his room, and the two Mossad operatives, tennis rackets still in hand, ride up in the same elevator. One of them follows Al-Mabhouh down the corridor at a discreet distance, in order to confirm his room number—230—and to get a sense of the layout of the hotel floor.

A little after four o'clock, the command team, with the exception of Elvinger, makes its way to the Al Bustan. Elvinger takes a car to another hotel and places two phone calls from its business center. The first is to the front desk of the Al Bustan, to book a room for the night. He requests room 237, which the surveillance team has reported is directly across the corridor from 230. His second call is to an airline to reserve a seat on an evening flight to Zurich via Qatar.

In the lobby of the Al Bustan, the surveillance team relays that the target is exiting the hotel and heading to a nearby mall, the same one in which Elvinger met the group of team members earlier. It is here that the recording of events from the Dubai police investigation becomes uncharacteristically vague. Until now, the authorities have established a clear, detailed timeline. By studying hundreds of hours of closed-circuit security footage, they have meticulously reconstructed the movements of the many characters involved in the unfolding drama. But when Al-Mabhouh arrives at the mall, the river of information suddenly goes dry. What did he do during the next four hours, which were to be the last of his life? Where did he go? With whom did he meet? The official report does not provide even a sketchy outline of the missing hours.

According to Israeli intelligence sources, Al-Mabhouh met with a banker who was assisting him with various international weapons transactions, and with his regular contact from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, who flew in to coordinate the delivery of two large shipments of weapons to Hamas the following month. The Dubai police had good reason to gloss over this part of the narrative, if they were indeed aware of it. Providing details of Al-Mabhouh's contacts would have been highly embarrassing to authorities eager to paint Dubai as a squeaky-clean international business center. It would also have served as a reminder that the victim of this cold-blooded Israeli execution had a fair amount of blood on his hands, raising inconvenient questions about why Al-Mabhouh was there in the first place—questions that the media largely forgot to ask in the furor that erupted after his assassination.

* * *

Late afternoon
At four twenty-seven, Peter Elvinger enters the lobby of the Al Bustan carrying a small suitcase. He walks over to where Kevin Daveron is sitting, places the suitcase beside him, and then heads to the reception desk, where he checks in and receives the key to the room that he booked by phone earlier that afternoon. He then walks back to Daveron, hands him the key to room 237, and exits the hotel without retrieving his suitcase. Elvinger's role in the operation is now over. By seven thirty, he will be at the airport preparing to leave the country.

For the next several hours—until the operation is completed—Daveron and Folliard are in command. At four forty-five, Daveron crosses the lobby, taking the suitcase with him, and rides the elevator up to the second floor. A few minutes later, Folliard arrives at the Al Bustan and goes straight up to 237.

At five thirty-six, another operative arrives in the lobby wearing a baseball cap; minutes later, he emerges from the elevator on the second floor wearing a wig. He too goes to 237. At approximately six thirty, four more men enter the hotel and go up to the room in pairs. Two of the men are carrying bags, and all four wear baseball caps that partially conceal their faces. These are the men who will carry out the assassination.

* * *

Evening
Just before six forty-five, the surveillance team in the lobby of the Al Bustan is replaced. After sitting for four hours in the lobby, rackets in hand, the fake tennis players finally leave the scene. At 8 p.m., the seven-person group in 237 makes its move. Daveron and Folliard stand guard in the corridor while one of the other operatives reprograms the electronic lock on the door of 230. The intention is to rig the mechanism so that the hit men can enter the room using an unregistered electronic key while also being careful not to accidentally disable Al-Mabhouh's own key.

There are some questions about timing that are worth pausing over here. Why did the assassins wait an hour and a half in 237 before breaking into Al-Mabhouh's room? And why did they arrive at the hotel at six thirty, two hours after Al-Mabhouh left for the mall and Daveron got the key to room 237? The long delay suggests two things: first, that the team knew exactly what Al-Mabhouh's schedule was and how long he would be away from the hotel. (Presumably they wanted to postpone entry into Al-Mabhouh's room for as long as possible, so as not to run the risk of someone else, such as a maid, entering unexpectedly.) And second, it suggests considerable confidence in the ability of their operative to disable the electronic lock on Al-Mabhouh's door. The speed with which he did this indicates that this part of the operation was extremely well rehearsed. And since the team did not know in advance which hotel Al-Mabhouh would be staying at, one has to assume that as part of his preparation for the mission, the lock picker practiced disabling every type of lock in use in all the major hotels in Dubai.

At this delicate moment, as the team is beginning to break into Al-Mabhouh's room, they are temporarily disturbed by a hotel guest who steps off the elevator on the second floor. The footage from the security cameras shows Daveron quickly moving toward him, blocking his line of sight and engaging him in idle conversation. When the guest finally walks off, it's clear that the lock tampering has been successful. Daveron and Folliard return to 237, and the assassins enter 230 to wait for their target.

At eight twenty-four, Al-Mabhouh returns to the hotel and goes straight to his room, passing Daveron in the elevator bank and Folliard in the corridor. He has no reason to be suspicious—his key works as it should, and the door bears no visible sign of forced entry. Once he is inside, Daveron and Folliard stand guard.

Twenty minutes later, it is over. The assassins exit room 230, somehow managing to leave the room chained from the inside. The team meets briefly in 237, presumably to gather their things and report back to the command center outside Dubai; then they begin to exit. The assassins are the first to leave. Minutes later, Folliard follows arm in arm with another operative, and Daveron is the last to emerge from room 237. Within four hours, most of the team has left Dubai.

* * *

What occurred in room 230 during those twenty minutes? How did Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh die? It's impossible to know for sure. As in the attempt on Al-Mabhouh's life two months earlier, the Mossad wanted his death to appear to be due to natural causes. This was critical, as it would buy the Caesarea fighters precious time to leave the emirate before the alarm was sounded. A "noisy" kill would set off a wide-scale manhunt that would result in the temporary shutdown of Dubai International Airport (and of air traffic in and out of Dubai in general), trapping the Mossad operatives inside the country. With nowhere to hide and no way to escape, they would almost certainly have been apprehended. And once in the hands of the Dubai police, there would have been considerable pressure on the authorities to punish them to the full extent of the law, which in Dubai would have likely meant death sentences for at least some of those involved. There would have been little the Mossad or Israel could have done to save its operatives.

According to the official police report, the killers first injected Al-Mabhouh with a poison, then smothered him with a pillow. Saeed Hamiri, M.D., of the Dubai forensic lab, said the crime-scene investigators found a trickle of blood on Al-Mabhouh's pillow, bruises on his nose, face, and neck, and an injection mark on his right hip. Along with signs of struggle in the room—a damaged headboard, for example—these details would seem to suggest that the target was smothered to death. But one has to wonder about the plausibility of these conclusions. (The Dubai chief of police did not respond to several requests from GQ for an interview.)

Given how vital it was to this mission that Al-Mabhouh's death appear natural, it's doubtful that the Caesarea fighters would have planned to smother him in his room. If indeed there was a struggle—and the chronology of events raises serious doubts about the details in the police report—the question is whether it occurred before the poison was administered or while it was taking effect. The drug purportedly used was succinylcholine, which, if administered in a large enough dose, leads to total muscular paralysis and, once the muscles necessary for breathing cease functioning, to asphyxia and death. According to toxicology experts I spoke with, however, the drug is also detectable in the body long after death, and it's hard to believe that the Mossad operatives wouldn't be aware of this. If they were and chose to use the drug anyway, it speaks perhaps to their assumptions about what type of investigation they expected would take place, or if one would take place at all.

There is good reason to believe, however, that to this day the Dubai police are not sure how Al-Mabhouh died. In terms of their forensic medical evidence, they may in fact be unable to prove he was murdered. Their investigation, after all, was triggered not by autopsy findings—which, according to sources connected to the Dubai police, were inconclusive—but by the evidence contained in CCTV footage.

When Al-Mabhouh's body was discovered by a hotel maid, at around one thirty the following afternoon, roughly seventeen hours after he'd been killed, there was at first no reason to suspect foul play. Because he had been using a false passport, the police had no initial inkling of who he really was. It was only when Al-Mabhouh failed to contact his headquarters in Damascus that his Hamas colleagues began to suspect something was wrong and sent one of Al-Mabhouh's men to the Dubai city morgue, where he was shocked to discover his commander's body.

It was at that point, approximately a week after his death, that the Hamas leadership in Damascus contacted Lieutenant General Dhahi Khalfan Tamim, chief of the Dubai Police, and informed him that they believed Al-Mabhouh had been killed by the Mossad. According to European intelligence sources, Tamim's initial reaction was to rage at them on the phone, verbally abusing senior Hamas officials for using Dubai as a battleground for espionage and terrorism. "Take yourselves and your bank accounts and your weapons and your forged fucking passports and get out of my country," he reportedly shouted. Once he calmed down, though, a cursory review of the hotel-security footage from the cameras outside room 230 at the time of Al-Mabhouh's death convinced Tamim that he needed to open an investigation immediately.

So it may well be that the authorities first arrived at the conclusion that Al-Mabhouh was assassinated and only then revisited and adjusted their pathology findings so as to avoid admitting to the world that, despite their massive investment in the state-of-the-art security systems that blanket the country, they were unable to say with any certainty how Al-Mabhouh had died. In a press conference held on February 15, Tamim announced that Al-Mabhouh had been killed by a hit squad and announced that their forensic tests indicated that he'd been suffocated. Lab tests, he said, were still under way. Nearly two weeks later, on February 28, he announced the discovery of the exact cause of death. That Al-Mabhouh's body was reportedly sent back to Syria on January 28, however, and buried after a big funeral procession on January 29, calls into question these findings.

The rest of the investigation that Tamim conducted, however, was meticulous and efficient in a way that no one, least of all the Mossad, had expected. A source close to the investigation said that the moment Tamim concluded that Al-Mabhouh had not died of natural causes, he ordered his people to search Dubai's extensive databases and identify everyone who had arrived in the emirate shortly before the killing and left soon after. This list was then cross-referenced against the names of visitors who had been in Dubai back in February, March, June, and November of 2009, all the times of Al-Mabhouh's previous visits. The short list that emerged was then checked against hotel registers, and footage from hotel security cameras at the times these individuals checked in made it possible to put a face to each name. Tamim then compared these visual identifications to the footage from the Al Bustan Hotel at the time of Al-Mabhouh's death, which gave him the names of the assassins. And searching databases of financial transactions gave him the identities of the rest of the team, all of which Dubai authorities posted online for the world to see.

Tamim also turned out to be extremely media-savvy. He presided over well-planned press conferences, carefully doling out information in a manner guaranteed to keep viewers—especially in the Arab world—coming back for more. He publicly called for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and of Meir Dagan, whom he challenged to "be a man" and take responsibility for the assassination. More realistically, perhaps, he called for international arrest warrants for all members of the hit squad, which caused considerable diplomatic embarrassment for Israel. When asked by an interviewer what the hit team's biggest mistake was, Tamim answered that the presence of two men waiting for hours in the lobby in tennis gear with uncovered rackets was so bizarre that it instantly raised suspicion.

The laughable attempts of the Mossad operatives to disguise their appearance made for good television coverage, but the more fundamental errors committed by the team had less to do with cloak-and-dagger disguises than with a kind of arrogance that seems to have pervaded the planning and execution of the mission.

Despite the fact that Dubai is a hostile environment—a distant Arab state with ties to Iran—many details of the mission suggest the Mossad treated it as if they were operating inside a base country. The use of Payoneer cards is one obvious example. For the most part, prepaid debit cards are only used domestically within the United States, and while Payoneer does issue debit cards that are valid internationally, these are relatively rare. That several of the team members were using the same type of unusual card issued by the same company—one whose CEO, Yuval Tal, is a veteran of an elite Israeli Defense Force commando unit—gave the Dubai police a common denominator to connect the various members of the team.

It has also become apparent that in order to avoid calling one another's cell phones directly, the operatives used a dedicated private switchboard in Austria. Any operative trying to reach a colleague—whether in the hotel down the street or at the command post in Israel—dialed one of a handful of numbers in Austria, from which the call was then rerouted to its destination. But since dozens of calls were made to and from this short list of Austrian numbers over a period of less than two days, the moment that the cover of a single operative was blown and his cell phone records became available to the authorities, all others who called or received calls from the same numbers were at risk of being identified.

It gets worse. One of the most serious mistakes made by the planners of the operation—certainly the one that caused the greatest embarrassment to the Mossad and to Israel—involved the use of forged foreign identities.

When it comes to false identities and false passports, the Mossad has a unique problem, one that most Western intelligence services do not face. When the CIA or the British SIS (or MI6, as it is commonly known) send an operative into the field, they can usually provide him or her with a valid U.S. or U.K. passport issued in whatever false name and identity the individual will be using. But an Israeli spy cannot use an Israeli passport, since the most important targets for Israeli espionage are in countries that do not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. For this reason, the need for foreign documentation has always been an acute one in the Mossad, which has historically resolved this problem by forging what it needed. Naturally, this is done without the authorization of the countries involved.

Whenever the Mossad is found out, as has happened from time to time, a major diplomatic scandal erupts. In the summer of 1986 an Israeli intelligence courier in West Germany left a bag containing forged British passports in a phone booth. The British government was outraged, and for a long time afterwards all ties between the British and Israeli intelligence services were cut. They were renewed only in the mid-1990s, after the Mossad and SIS signed a memorandum stating that neither would operate without consent on each other's soil or work against each other's interests. Historically speaking, though, the practice of forging passports was relatively simple, and usually went undiscovered. Rafi Eitan, now in his 80s, was at one time one of the Mossad's master spies. He famously led the team that captured Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Argentina in 1960. "In the past it used to be so easy for us to assume new identities and to invent cover stories," Eitan told me. "There was no Internet and there were no computers, and so no real possibility of checking who and what you were. We used to say that it was possible to forge a passport of a country that doesn't exist!"

For this mission, all but one of the team members was traveling with a forged passport. The one passport that wasn't forged belonged to "Michael Bodenheimer," a member of the team and supposedly a German national. Once the Dubai authorities made public the names and nationalities under which the operatives had traveled, the German Federal Police opened an investigation into the provenance of Bodenheimer's passport. What they soon found out (as was reported in the German magazine Der Spiegel) was that a valid German passport had been issued in June 2009 to a Mossad operative—using the name Michael Bodenheimer—who claimed German citizenship through his "father." (The "father," also an Israeli, had recently claimed that he was "Hans Bodenheimer," born in Germany and a victim of the Holocaust, and he was granted immediate citizenship under a provision of the German constitution that allows for such cases. A real Holocaust survivor named Hans Bodenheimer did in fact exist, but it was not the man who applied for German citizenship.)

What the blown identities of the operatives illustrate more than anything is the now seemingly insurmountable problem posed by twenty-first-century counterespionage systems. False identities and cover stories are no longer any match for well-placed security cameras, effective passport control, and computer software that can almost instantly track communications and financial transactions.

* * *

Why did the Mossad permit things to go so wrong in Dubai? In a word, the answer is leadership. Because Dagan refashioned the Mossad in his own image, and because he drove out anyone who was willing to question his decisions, there was no one in the agency to tell him that the Dubai operation was badly conceived and badly planned. They simply did not believe that a minnow in the world of intelligence services such as Dubai would be any match for Israel's Caesarea fighters. As one very senior German intelligence expert told me: "The Israelis' problem has always been that they underestimate everyone—the Arabs, the Iranians, Hamas. They are always the smartest and think they can hoodwink everyone all the time. A little more respect for the other side—even if you think he is a dumb Arab or a German without imagination—and a little more modesty would have saved us all from this embarrassing entanglement."

The Dubai fiasco caused a great deal of damage to Israel, to the Mossad, and to its relations with other Western intelligence organizations. It led to unprecedented revelations of Mossad personnel and methods, far more than any previous bungled operation. A number of states who believe that their passports were forged or otherwise misused by the agency have expelled Mossad representatives. The British response in particular was furious. And Israel's long-standing security-and-intelligence cooperation with Germany has also been dealt a hugely damaging blow. In early June, the head of the Caesarea unit in the Mossad—who had been considered the leading contender to eventually replace Dagan—offered his resignation. As for Dagan's future, before Dubai he had hoped that the liquidation of Al-Mabhouh would ensure yet another extension of his tenure as director of the agency. But that has not come to pass. At the time of this writing, it is assumed that he will not continue. And so the Mossad "with a knife between its teeth" likely is entering another period of confusion and self-doubt.

"There is no doubt Dagan received an organization on the verge of coma and brought it back to its feet," one Mossad veteran of many years told me. "He increased its budget, won great successes, and most important, he rebuilt its pride. The problem is that multiplying its volume of activity many times over came with the price of compromising on security protocols. And along with success came hubris. Together, they brought the Dubai debacle. And now, in some areas, his successor will find a Mossad even worse off than Dagan found in 2002."

Ronen Bergman is the senior political and military analyst for the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth and the author of several books, including By Any Means Necessary and The Secret War with Iran. He is currently writing a book about the history of the Mossad's targeted killings.

via gq.com