h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Anatomy of a Hijack - A720325
Author: Belshazzar, Keeper of The Writing On The Wall and All Graffiti - U188050

I have pieced together the inside story of a hijacking incident which was the inspiration for an opera. It’s an amazing opera, by the way, but this Entry is not about the opera, it’s about the hijacking itself. Even though I’ve cut out a lot of the fine detail, it’s not for anyone with a brief attention span. But it’s a rattling good yarn.

Wow, really long entry but flawless as far as I could see! I found the topic really interesting, and read the whole thing so well done.

Thank you, thank you. Good to know that at least one person has passed the endurance test.

I passed half the endurance test I sorta skimmed the last bit sorry. But you know, time constraints and all. I'll go back and read it later.

It is a good read, though: very interesting, very through, and I suspect, very... er... relevant. I do have a few comments though, from the perspective of knowing absolutely nothing about this subject previous to seeing the title, which I suppose is the point, really. I am your ideal audience

I didn't realise till the third paragraph that we were talking about a ship hijacking rather than a plane. I did read your footnote about the word hijack, but at the same time I do associate hijacking with planes. I think many other people do too.

Also I was expecting from the title some kind of discussion about hijacking in general, not a specific one, and particularly not one on which an opera is based.

Finally, I was quite surprised that there was no further mention of the opera, as the intro sorta suggested _to me_ that you were going to talk about the actual incident so as to talk about the opera. Course it is possible that I missed something while skimming. Please feel free to tell me to go wash my head if I have.

And that's about it, really

Yes, most people do associate hijacking these days with planes. If you'd read that far (!) I do mention a previous plane hijack, and also how international law providing for such things didn't include ships. Hijacking of ships is pretty unusual, one of the unusual features of this incident. Do you think I should mention at the outset that it's a ship not a plane?

As regards the title, I deliberately refer to A Hijack rather than the anatomy of the hijack or the anatomy of hijacks or anything, to make it clear it's about a specific incident.

The opera: My first idea was indeed to write about the opera, but while working on that I got more and more fascinated by the behind-the-scenes (operatic term!) machinations of the hijack itself. I need hardly say that I think the entry is quite long enough as it stands, and if this goes down OK I may well write a follow-up on the opera, which I do know quite a bit about, having met the composer and been involved in a recent recording for a TV film of it.

Hi Belshazzar,

Thanks for writing this - I'd never heard about this incident before, and I think you're right about it being particularly interesting at the moment.

One point - in the "US Blunder" section you refer to "paramilitaries", which I think is usually a term for disorganised militias or irregular soldiers - indeed, it's often used in the UK to refer to terrorists in Ireland.

Best wishes

Otto

I do think a mention of it being a boat in the intro would be a good idea. It sort of stopped me in my tracks while I reordered my preconceptions when I realised. And it is an interesting feature.

I agree that the other points are less urgent But I did have a thought that if the title were something very specific like (oh gods) 'The anatomy of the [name of Ship] cruise liner hijack' (or something) this would deal with all three of my points with minimal additions necessary. Which I do appreciate is a consideration

I mean, I agree with the title now I've read the peice (mostly read it...), but before I read it I was thinking 'a typical hijack' which is a possible interpretation, I think you'll agree. And a title such as that would also make it clear that it is the incident, not the opera which will be discussed. Anyway. Just a thought.

Re: "paramilitaries"
The squad referred to is the US Delta Force. This is an elite hostage rescue unit, modelled on the SAS. These guys are trained in counter-terrorism and close combat. I believe the existence of this unit is still officially denied, and certainly information about it is top secret. It is known, however, for example, that they took part in a failed attempt to rescue American hostages from the US Embassy in Tehran in November 1979. They are also known to have seen action in Panama and in the Gulf War. Their involvement in the Achille Lauro affair is also, obviously, known.

So they are paramilitaries, not in the strict sense that they are illegal, but in that they are little-known, clandestine and certainly not a regular outfit.

In trying to cut down on the 'fine detail' I have not generally specified the various forces and units called in at the various stages, but I'm happy to change "paramilitaries" to read "specialised hostage rescue forces" or something like that.

Solnushka, the fact that it's a ship is now mentioned in the intro. I haven't changed the title - h2g2 likes short snappy titles and I think the present one is fine

Hi Belshazzar,

I don't really have much I can add to this, except to say that it is a great entry.

I did pass the endurance test and thought it was an interesting read right to the end.

I would rather that you had not told us which of the US theories was in fact correct because I felt that this took a little of the suspense and sense of uncertanty away. That's just because I like a story.

I also didn't entirely understand why being a pro- or anti-PLO faction meant that they would react differently to a siege. I would have expected political affiliations to have little effect on your reaction when attacked. Clearly the US wanted to know, I just don't see how it changed the millitary strategy.

Anyway, I now know a lot more about an incident that I had only heard of by name before.



Ugi

To quote from the entry:
"Some of the experts in the US State Department fought shy of arguing that the hijackers were from a pro-PLO group, because they were sensitive about disrupting the ongoing Middle East peace process, and if they started to put the blame on Arafat that would amount to calling him a terrorist, which would make it impossible for the Americans to continue to negotiate with him. So there was an inbuilt tendency to give the PLO the benefit of the doubt."

So if you think the hijackers are pro-PLO (ie Arafat is ultimately behind it) you play the whole thing down, and maybe try to negotiate a compromise deal, because you want to keep Arafat on-side.

If you think they are anti-PLO you go in with guns blazing and carry out a daring rescue and (if it succeeds) everybody back home thinks you're great.

This is a gross over-simplification, of course, but will it do for now?

I'm sure the irony is not lost on you, that some of the US authorities correctly surmised that the hijackers were pro-PLO but they went for a high-profile rescue anyway.

Hi there!

Yes, I followed that point, it was just that I had also formed the impression that they were expecting a different reaction from the hijackers depending on whether they were pro- or anit-. Maybe that was just me getting the wrong end of the stick.

Clearly they didn't really have any idea, even though some had concluded one thing and some another. Forcing the plane down in Italy seems, however, to have had a predictable effect. There has to have been a better option than that (although if it was already low on fuel, perhaps not).

Yeah...

Well, I always like your title more than my idea, so I'm happy!

I have now read right to the end, and I agree that it grips all the way there. I am now trying to work out why I must have ignored the incident entirely when it happened.

I do have two (small) observations, but no time to make them. There, that'll keep you guessing

Low on fuel? Probably not. Although I didn't mention this detail, the plane was on its way to Tunis when it was intercepted. There were possible alternatives to Sicily - eg the British base at Akrotiri on Cyprus, where they could at least have refuelled.

I just meant:
"The Italian traffic controllers at the air base refused permission for the planes to land, even though they were told that the civilian airliner was running out of fuel ... "

So it might not have got much further anyway. Unless they were lying, which is always an option. Not that I am in a position to comment on their decision anyway, since I know essentially nothing about all of this. The Italian reaction just seemed predictable.

I shouldn't be clogging up the PR thread with all this anyway!

Right. "they were told that the civilian airliner was running out of fuel ... " means what it says.

It doesn't say "the civilian airliner was running out of fuel ... "

I think this is a fascinating story, and a well written entry that manages to capture the drama of it. I have a few comments to make, but they are minor ones.

You mention that a performance of the opera was cancelled that was 'not long after' September 11th. Perhaps a date would be good, to show how soon after.

You mention that the hijackers demanded the release of 50 prisoners. You also say that 'and sure enough the only prisoner they named among the 50 whose release they were demanding was a known PLF member', in the section 'Who Were the Hijackers?'. Who are the 'they' here. Context would suggest that it was the Hijackers who are doing the naming, but I don't see how, or why you would demand the release of 49 prisoners, without saying who they want releasing. I might have got the wrong end of the stick here, though.

You refer to a US TWA plane hijack, in the "Who Were the Hijackers?" section. Here, I assume TWA is an acronym, and if so I think that it would be good to either spell it out, or put the full name in a footnote.

That's all for know, I will probably have another look through the entry later.

The concert cancellations were in Nov 2001. I have amended the entry.

The hijackers said they wanted the release of 50 prisoners, the most important of whom was named as Samir Qantari. This was over a radio link between the ship and the Port Said officials (in a conversation monitored by the Israelis) and as far as I can tell they did not name all 50 at that time, merely stated that the total was 50 - and, incidentally, emphasised that they did not wish that figure to include the 21 Palestinian prisoners in Italian jails at that time.

I have re-worded the entry but, as you say, it's a minor point and I don't want it to get bogged down in too much extra detail. The point is that the only name the authorities had to go on at that stage was a PLF member. You can't expect the hijackers at that stage to have been particularly coherent or precise - they were young men, inexperienced, probably very nervous, and probably just talking off the tops of their heads.

As regards TWA, I believe that in 1985 its name was TWA. It had grown out of the early days of aviation and at some stage morphed into Trans World Airways, later to become just TWA, and it was always colloquially known as TWA and that was its name to all intents and purposes. I believe it has now been taken over by American Airlines, but is still known as TWA.

Very good, a well writen piece of history. However I suspect that they later regretted that thay hadn't forced the aircraft down onto the British base in Cyprus. Well Done.

Like Solnushka, I thought this was going to be a generic hijack story.

You could change the title to 'The Achille Lauro Hijack' and have the same number of words.