 |
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 21 - 27 September 2000 Issue No. 500 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 21 - 27 September 2000 Issue No. 500
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
Egypt Elections Development Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Special Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Indubitable facts
By Salama Ahmed Salama
An accurate item published recently in The New York Review of Books brought the EgyptAir crash of 31 October into sharp focus. For once an American magazine examined the crash, which occurred minutes after the plane took off from the John F Kennedy Airport, in an objective light, revealing aspects of the investigation on which the media had failed to provide information. Any talk of military or security intervention as a possible cause for the crash was rejected as conjecture, unsupported by proof.
Perhaps the most significant charge with which the magazine indicted the National Transportation Safety Board was its failure to study the electromagnetic conditions at the time of the crash, an essential procedure undertaken routinely whether or not a mechanical error has occurred. Even so, investigations concerning the crash, having failed to identify a mechanical error, persisted in reporting that the pilot, Gamil El-Battouti, had decided to take his life and the lives of his passengers.
The evidence cited by The New York Review of Books need not be republished here: suffice it say that it has now been proved that plane crossed an air route at a time when it was being used for military manoeuvres, and that JFK Airport surveillance failed to inform either the pilot or any checkpoint the plane was to cross of the fact (even though they had informed an El Al plane flying at the same time, prompting the pilot to take a different route). The air control tower thus exposed the Egyptian plane to radiation emitted by US Air Force satellites and radar monitoring the area (which are normally informed of the presence of civilian aircraft within their scope, to enable them to prevent just such a crash). The New York Review of Books report points out that this is the only possible explanation for the crash occurring minutes after takeoff. It would also account for the terror and confusion evident in the pilot's voice as he recited verses of the Qur'an.
It is only natural that this report and the evidence it contains should raise numerous questions. The first concerns the professional ethics of American airport personnel: should hostility towards Egyptians be allowed to lead to such neglect? Second, the report explained how the nationality of even a civilian plane and the presence of military personnel on board can make that plane a military target; it is impossible to absolve the Air Force entirely of responsibility for the crash. Third, should civilians really be subjected to military manoeuvres without being told? A comparison between America's position on the infamous Lockerbie crash and its insistence on holding Libya responsible (despite the lack of hard evidence) and its position on the EgyptAir crash (which could reasonably be said to amount to purposeful destruction) imposes itself.
In both incidents, hundreds of civilians died, but it was on the occasion of Lockerbie that America imposed sanctions on Libya, and used all its influence to orchestrate an investigation -- which has not yet proved Libya responsible. On the occasion of the EgyptAir crash, in contrast, the American authorities were quick to conceal the facts, subverting any suspicion of military intervention (the actual cause of the crash). Furthermore, they forced Egypt to cover part of the expenses of the investigations and accused El-Battouti of submitting to a suicidal and murderous impulse. Thus are facts manipulated, and exploited by the more powerful party to its own advantage.
