Maltese role in Egypt Air hijack disaster (1)

The 25th anniversary of the hijacked Egyptian airline with the carnage that followed brought up again the role of the Cabinet led by Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici and the matter of US military officers who accompanied the Egyptian military troops.

It is common knowledge that the Maltese government, in the shape of the Socialist Cabinet of the day, sequestered the US personnel and the unaccompanied Egyptians proceeded to storm the plane with terrible consequences.

It appears that other countries offered the services of their military. Did the US offer its services? If so why was the offer rejected? Aside from the government’s anti-US bias and its prejudice against the west, what else prompted the rejection? I have to ask: Out of all the Cabinet sitting in the control tower that day, is there one who expresses regret at having participated in this foolish decision? Or do they think that the expression of sorrow constitutes sufficient expiation?

Why were the American officers sequestered? Had the US officers been allowed to go on with their business, would the loss of life have been less severe? A great deal is made of the fact that the Egyptians broke the terms of the deal they had struck with the Maltese government. Frankly nobody gives a hoot about what the two sides had agreed upon. Such breach does not exonerate the Maltese side from the tragedy. We were told that the Prime Minister’s offer to resign was, wonder of wonders, rejected by the Cabinet. Big deal indeed! Why didn’t the whole Cabinet resign?

Can it be said that the evil of the Palestinian terrorists together with the incompetence of the Egyptian troops and the blind pursuit of neutrality by the Socialist Cabinet combined to produce this huge loss of innocent lives?

Was Malta’s neutrality worth the sufferings and death of so many innocent victims? I don’t think so, especially when we all know the history of our neutrality.

In democratic countries fair elections are automatic; they do not have to be granted in exchange of anything. Here neutrality was the price the majority was forced to pay for free and fair elections.

Eventually the surviving terrorist was released from jail after serving only eight years. Is there anyone in the judiciary or in the legal structure who will denounce a system that is so disrespectful of life that it will let a mass murderer off after only eight years? Are innocent lives that cheap?

Eventually Mohammed Ali Rezaq got what he deserved in the US where he was sentenced for life.

Much more has to be written about this saga before the truth will ever come out.