Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

There was no massacre in Jenin

pcanning,

They will not admit to anything, even if Sharon himself posted in here to admit to war crimes they would accuse him of a bias.

I poste this link before...

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/04/israel041802.htm

(Jerusalem, April 18, 2002) The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) routinely compel civilians to assist in its military operations, Human Rights Watch charged in a new report released today. The twenty-four page report, In a Dark Hour: The Use of Civilians During IDF Arrest Operations, documents how the IDF routinely has taken civilians at gunpoint to open suspicious packages, knock on doors of suspects, and search the houses of "wanted" Palestinians during its military operations.

There are many others like it, including Israeli ones, at best they ignore them, at worst they accuse them of bias or make excuses for it.
 
pcanning - I see it is pointless to debate with you, so I won't waste my precious time doing so. Sorry, but I have a life to live and have already wasted enough time on you.

BTW, in court of law, defence can also ask a judge to excuse him/herself, and can appeal to higher court if not happy with lower court judge.
 
Originally posted by the strategist
pcanning - I see it is pointless to debate with you, so I won't waste my precious time doing so. Sorry, but I have a life to live and have already wasted enough time on you.

BTW, in court of law, defence can also ask a judge to excuse him/herself, and can appeal to higher court if not happy with lower court judge.

Q.E.D:D
 
balls packed up and ready to go home? i'm not cheering.

for pity's sake. this is not about a court of law! this is an inquiry. and if it did get to the Hague (which I doubt very much unless Sharon really does end up in Milosovic's position and is handed over by Israel - excuse why I duck some flying pigs - or Jack Straw acquires a conscience) then there is no higher court!

Just to remind oneself that there are many Israelis without cloth ears.

http://www.indymedia.org.il/

[please add more URLs to give us all a little hope]
 
Read into this whatever you want (which is what you are good at), but I have made my claims and don't have more time to spend debating them point for point when I don't think you'll listen.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, I have enough sense and knowledge to understand what is really going on. I think that a lot of the people on this site listen to one side only, and do not worry about believing lies and propoganda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sorry but this is really quite insulting, you might as well call me an indiot and be done with it, and, for me, it echoes with some of the other appalling statements made by Israeli spokespeople insulting europeans. disagreement does not mean I'm in the pay of the PLO, actually or metaphorically. The Israeli Government produces its own lies and propoganda.

Sorry, you're insulted, but I think you are not interested in listening to me or learning from someone who knows better (and yes, I know a lot better than you, that is clear from the level of your arguments which mostly consist of cut and pastes from other sources).
 
Sorry, you're insulted, but I think you are not interested in listening to me or learning from someone who knows better (and yes, I know a lot better than you, that is clear from the level of your arguments which mostly consist of cut and pastes from other sources).

no! I very much want to hear what you say. I am clicking on your links and reading your arguments. I do not agree with most of your arguments. this is all. we can have a civilised disagreement. have i insulted you?

in regards to not being there and relying on sources. I have 20 years of journalistic experience (though i am not one full time now) and have spend many hours trying to find the truth through propoganda, sometimes against my own instincts. so yes, you are insulting me though i'm not deeply offended and please don't worry about it.

of course i am not there so i come from a british perspective but i also come from one of living in australia for many years and working with a great many aboriginal people. i have seen how australians maintain a head in the sand attitude to what they have done to the aboriginal people of that country. they refuse to take responsibility and take every opportunity to blame the victim. this is what i hear echoes of in much[/] of what i read defending israel. 'my country right or wrong' and other jingioistic nonsense. most people do not want to hear their country criticised - just think of the reaction to international criticism of the treatment of illegal immigrants in Australian detention camps. I know from first hand experience that Australians reject all criticism out of hand yet know in their hearts that things are being done in their name which they would not be proud of. they simply prefer not to know. I hear echoes of this not just from Israel but from practically every country criticised on human rights grounds from outside.

what is my point? you need outside perspectives because you need perspective period. we all need perspectivewe are not your enemy. repeat that. we are not your enemy. the paranoia should be named and dropped.
 
have i insulted you?

No, I just have a lot of work to do, and this is taking up much more time than I anticipated. Also, I get bored talking politics so much so am losing interest.

When you have lived in a war then you care less about politics and more about survival, so you living in the UK (or wherever) can't understand really what is going on.

Look, a general rule of life is to look at both sides of the coin, and to find the middle ground. That is usually the true answer i.e. the world is grey not black and white.

The Palestinians are undoubtedly right, but so are the Israelis. You have to listen to both sides to get the true story.

I think that if you want to offer an outside perspective, it needs to be balanced. That is a big problem in this conflict that people who mean well don't realise they are actually alienating the people they want to help.

Like the claim that Jenin was like the Warsaw Ghetto. That will only infurate most Israelis, not give them an outside perspective. It will be counter productive, not a positive statement.

I don't think you are being balanced, plain and simple. Perhaps it is your age and culture to blame, and I don't think this forum is good for getting the truth since it is oriented towards rejectionism, and rejectionism by its nature rejects streams of truth (meaning, everything that Tony Blair says is rejected, even though maybe 90-100% of what he says is true and correct).
 
"The Palestinians are undoubtedly right, but so are the Israelis. You have to listen to both sides to get the true story."

i have made this point, but nobody listened...
 
nosos,

Like the claim that Jenin was like the Warsaw Ghetto. That will only infurate most Israelis, not give them an outside perspective. It will be counter productive, not a positive statement.

I just added this line to my previous post. I'm not saying that you said this, but if U75 wants Israelis to listen and get an outside perspective, then they just can't say things like this. An outside perspective needs to be balanced, not slanted so strongly in a particular direction.
 
"U75"

there's no political concensus to this board - it's just loosely centre-left/left surely?

yes, but, i do think i'm unbiased, while some people in here undoubtably are being too pro-palestine, i think you are being too pro-israel..
 
this is getting rambling and i think we all agree to try to be civilised.

When you have lived in a war then you care less about politics and more about survival, so you living in the UK (or wherever) can't understand really what is going on.

i am not trying to be pedantic or to diminish what you and your family are going through but we had nearly thrty years of IRA bombs in London. I remember what emotions that caused especially during the worst of it

I think that if you want to offer an outside perspective, it needs to be balanced.

I don't think you are doing that, plain and simple. Perhaps it is your age and culture to blame.

don't go there. you are assuming things about me you know nothing about. fine if you don't think I'm balanced but I am the one who posted the ha'aretz editorial against the massacre claims and the link to the sunday telegraph article.
 
i think you are being too pro-israel

I think that some of the opinions I have expressed here would not particularly be appreciated by many Israelis.

In any case, it is a truism that extremity creates extremity. If you are being extremely anti-Israel, then someone who is pro-Israel will respond exactly the opposite manner, no matter their true beliefs.

but we had nearly thrty years of IRA bombs in London

I think the IRA bombs were a piece of cake compared to what the Israelis have been going through.

Proportionately speaking, in March the Israeli equivalent of 1300 British were killed (in one month) which never happened during the IRA attacks.

ha'aretz editorial against the massacre claims

Ha'aretz is the most left leaning paper in Israel (editorially speaking), and routinely hated by the right. It is also very high quality, and non-editorial news is very objective.
 
"In any case, it is a truism that extremity creates extremity. If you are being extremely anti-Israel, then someone who is pro-Israel will respond exactly the opposite manner, no matter their true beliefs."

exactly. although if you just monitor that reaction within yourself, there's no need to let it happen...
 
I heard the warsaw ghetto comparison made on any questions on radio 4 by, i think, a tory mp. if i remember correctly he was talking to the number of days they held out and the ferocity of the street fighting. i can see why this isn't the most apt comparison and could be seen to be inflamatory.

having said that it is next to impossible for myself or many others i would guess to know what exactly does constitute balance? suicide bombers have been repeatedly condemned, the impact on israelis covered extensively. the criticism of the BBC is relevant here as numerous studies have shown that it is actually heavily biased to an israeli analysis. yet it has been slammed as pro-palestinian.
 
If you are being extremely anti-Israel

many people here are outraged by what we see happening to palestinians. that is the emotional starting point at the present moment. in the real world this becomes 'anti-israel' but it is really anti-israeli government and especially anti-sharon. it is the responsibility of people like us who are at least talking to defend reason. i find myself getting extremely angry but i would hope that i'm not writing that.

but we had nearly thrty years of IRA bombs in London
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the IRA bombs were a piece of cake compared to what the Israelis have been going through.

i don't doubt it. your wife was almost killed (correct? i haven't retrieved that post). that i have never experienced. but i was talking about the emotions which an atmosphere of fear and 'where will they strike next' engenders in ordinary people. that i know about. and it is very very difficult to be the one to stand up and say 'hold on a minute, why are we doing this, isn't this a knee jerk reaction, won't this makes things worse?' and it is next to impossible to say 'we need to understand why they are doing this?'

Ha'aretz ... very high quality, and non-editorial news is very objective.

that's why i posted the editorial and why i bother reading it. also posted the editorial from jewish.co.uk and the article by Anthony Rudolf in the Jewish Chronicle. the jerusalem post is not objective and neither is most of the american press IMO. people like marie colvin in the times and suzanne goldberg in the guardian as well as the raw reports through indymedia are my first ports of call for sources.
 
There is far less outrage in the US - or even coverage - of alleged Israeli atrocities (called "war crimes" by some in the British media) in the city of Jenin. When the deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, himself a Jew and one of the Administration's toughest advocates for Israel, mentioned at a huge pro-Israel rally this week that "innocent Palestinians" had also died in the 18-month intifada, he was booed and jeered.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/04/19/1019020707826.html
geneva.jpg

An Israeli peace protester marches past troops in Bethlehem, where militants, monks and civilians remain besieged in the Church of the Nativity. Photo: AFP
 
Originally posted by the strategist
Saturday, April 20, 2002
Iyyar 8, 5762
Israel Time: 08:07 (GMT+3)


http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...D=3&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=153511


There was no massacre in Jenin

Editorial, Ha'aretz (strongly leftist newspaper)


The claim that there was a "massacre" in the Jenin refugee camp has been taken up by many news media around the world, human rights groups and even among many governments. This claim, originally made during the height of the fighting in the refugee camp, reverberates with gravity, seriously damaging Israel's political campaign to justify its self defense against terror and the legitimacy of the means it is using in that campaign.

In Israel, too, suspicions were raised that there was truth to the Palestinian claims. Many feared that Jenin would be added to the black list of massacres that have shocked the world. The IDF contributed to those fears when it issued a preliminary estimate of hundreds of dead in the camp (it turned out that several score were killed, with the exact number still unknown) and by blocking journalists from entering the camp to report what was happening inside. That was an invitation to another charge, also widely reported, of an alleged cover-up.

In recent days, journalists - including Ha'aretz reporters - have visited the camp, gathering their own first-hand impressions and eyewitness testimony about the IDF's operations. Ha'aretz reporter Amira Hass spent several days in the camp, and her report appears in today's pages. There is evidence of intense combat, but, with appropriate caution, it can already be said what did not happen in the Jenin refugee camp. There was no massacre. No order from above was given, nor was a local initiative executed, to deliberately and systematically kill unarmed people.

In Israel of 2002, there is practically no way to cover up atrocities. Testimony by commanders and fighters in Jenin, many of whom were civilians called up into reserves for the purpose of the operation, as well as testimony by those who observed the events through various means refute the claims of a massacre. The fighting was intense, as could be expected in built-up areas, and especially against the background of rapid Israeli successes in other areas, particularly the Nablus casbah. Armed Palestinians shot, blew up and mined houses and alleyways. The soldiers, who had difficulty progressing, used bulldozers and suffered heavy losses - 23 soldiers were killed. Under such circumstances, civilians were also harmed. That is a terrible, sorrowful fact, resulting from the nature of the fighting, and in some specific cases there should be an examination to determine whether everything necessary was done to prevent civilian casualties. But declaring the fighting in Jenin a "massacre" is a mistake on the part of the naive, and a slander by others.

Palestinian propagandists have made perverse use of legends that, in part, were invented outside Jenin. Leading these propagandists were officials of the Palestinian Authority who issued baseless charges of "executions," fanning the flames of hatred against Israel. The readiness of international elements, including the heads of the European Union, to accept the Palestinian version without question, is testimony to their character, to Israel's fragile situation and to Ariel Sharon's negative image.

bollocks
 
Over on gu talk there is an ultra rightwing zionist bigot putting out the same shite propaganda as 'strategist' is here. Take a look, it is in the international section there:

"There was no massacre in Jenin

Started by michaelmandahl at 04:18pm Apr 16, 2002 BST

Let me offer a different side to this story that not many people consider. The massacre in Jenin is nothing more than a political debate. The ICRC entered the town of Jenin, and even then would not confirm that a "massacre" had taken place."

I suspect these are from the same spammer, no doubt posting much of the same bullshit here as at gu. It looks like the same pricks who messed up gu talk are now over here trying to lay out the same propaganda bullshit. They are recruited at rightwing sites such as freerepublic or that honestreporting site I posted an article about earlier to go to other sites and post incessant propaganda and to disrupt conversations that are not of a pro-american and pro-zionist political view.
 
Originally posted by TheGremlin
Originally posted by the strategist
Losses outside of Jenin were insignificant.

You might as well save your breath. The pro Palestinian anti semites on these boards have no interest in truth, that would interfere with their hatred of Sharon and Israel. Given that so many of them are gutless cowards who would not even fight for their own countries survival, ( see other threads ) and support any people other than their own, they are truly scum. Chairman Mao had a wonderful phrase that describes them exactly, " Paper Tigers " which is exactly right as they are full of shit with no substance to back it up.

pro palestinian+yes
anti semite=u twat
interest in truth=live by it,as do most on these boards
hatred of Sharon=absolutely, hope the cunt gets cancer
gutless cowards etc etc=yawn, big guy on net
Chairman Mao=oh yes,wasn't he the patriot who fought for his country and did so much good for China.

u Grem and all the other Israeli apologists make me want to throw up. You use the Holocaust as a universal excuse for anything that Israel wants to do to maintain it's control of a land that doesn't belong to it. Jewish history in that land goes back a massive sixty years or so, if you ignore all the religious/fantasy bullshit about Moses/the promised land/gods people etc etc et cet cetc

Israel has no right to be in palestine or, for that matter, the whole fucking middle east. The only reason it exists is because the USA maintains it. Someone asked the other day if UK is the furthest state from mainland USA-no, Israel is. And if USA is supporting Israel we can assume it is for immoral reasons to do with its own well being and security. USA does fuck all unless it furthers USA. If the time ever comes when it is no longer in US interest to support Israel (for instance if the jewish lobby in Washington goes bankrupt and can no longer buy off congress) Israel will be dropped liked a fresh turd.

Roll on that day.
 
The state of israel was founded on acts of terror:

"But what's even more vexing to others is the apparent inability or unwillingness to discern similarities between the current Palestinian milieu and Israeli operations of 50-plus years ago, which secured statehood from colonialist occupiers¬óas well as similarities between violent, internecine struggles among disparate underground groups. "It's peculiar, it's paradoxical, that Sharon and Likud should be the ones who are trying to equate any authentic resistance in Palestine with some of the terrorist activities, as terrorism in Israel really started with Begin and Shamir and later Sharon," says Clovis Maksoud, the former Arab League ambassador to the United Nations. "It's a very valid question as to why they see no similarities between themselves under the British and the Palestinians under their occupation." Especially, he adds, as the Israeli government supports museums that honor assassins and terrorists¬óincluding one located on a street named for a terrorist.

The thoroughfare in question runs between Florentine and Emeq-Yisrael, and bears the name Stern Street¬óin honor of Avraham Stern, a 1920s Zionist and charter member of the Haganah, then a loose-knit Jewish militia organized as a self-defense mechanism against Arab violence. Finding the Haganah insufficiently proactive in realizing the goal of a Jewish state that would encompass "both sides of the River Jordan," erstwhile Mussolini follower and early-day ultra-nationalist Ze'ev Jabotinsky broke with the militia and formed the Irgun, which devoted itself to terrorist operations against the British. Once an enthusiastic Irgunist, Stern was appalled when the Irgun decided to make common cause with the British against the Nazis, and created the even more underground and more violent Lehi (Lohamei Herut Yisrael, or Fighters for the Freedom of Israel), also known as the Stern Gang, which held there was no greater threat to the Jews of Palestine than the mandate's British administrators.

To this end, Stern actually made overtures to the Axis powers; September 1940 found him in dialogue with an emissary from Il Duce in Jerusalem, and in January 1941 he dispatched an agent to Vichy-controlled Beirut with instructions to convey a letter to representatives of the Reich. In it, Stern held that the "establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East. Proceeding from these considerations, [the Lehi] in Palestine, under the condition [that] the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war on Germany's side."

The Germans declined to take Stern up on the offer, but Stern held out hope as his organization continued to engage in terrorism against the British. After Stern died in a shoot-out with British police in 1942, his mantle was picked up by future Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir. Still, the Israeli underground focused on the British as the greatest of all evils, and on November 6, 1944, Lord Moyne, the British minister for Middle East affairs, was assassinated in Cairo by Eliyahu Beit-Tzuri and Eliyahu Hakim¬óboth members of the Lehi, who were later arrested, convicted, and hanged. After the state of Israel was established, the Lehi, displeased with what it considered the too pro-Arab views of the Swedish UN-appointed mediator for Palestine, assassinated him; on September 17, 1948, Count Folke Bernadotte¬ówho, as a neutral diplomat in World War II, had saved thousands of Jews from Nazi death camps¬ówas shot and killed by Lehi assassins, along with French colonel Andre Serot, the senior UN military observer, whose wife's life had been saved by Bernadotte.

The Bernadotte assassination was so outrageous that the nascent government of David Ben-Gurion had little problem disbanding the Lehi (though none of the assassins were ever brought to justice). Yet, despite this history of terror, the Israeli Ministry of Defense underwrites museums commemorating the Stern Gang and the Irgun¬ówhich, under Menachem Begin, bombed the British headquarters at the King David Hotel in 1946, leaving 90 dead and 45 wounded (with 15 Jews among the casualties). Like Lehi, it wasn't until 1948 that the Irgun was forced out of existence, after its arms-transport ship, the Altalena, was blown up by the provisional Israeli government¬óa point analysts like Ibish say bears remembering.

"There are streets named after the assassins of Moyne and Bernadotte. They are historical figures not disavowed by the rhetoric of the state of Israel, nor is there any reflection on the fact that two terrorist leaders later became distinguished leaders of the republic," Ibish says. "And now people are saying that Arafat must have his Altalena." Ibish adds that Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, "never moved against the Irgun and the Stern Gang until after the state was established and secured, which is definitely not true in the case of the Palestinian Authority. Essentially, the Israelis are asking the Palestinians to do something they themselves refused to do.""

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0151/vest.php

Those passing out the zionist propaganda here are the moral equivilents of those who make excuses for concentration camp guards in my opinion.
 
Jenin was not the 1st massacre perpetuated by zionist israelis:

"First, two propositions:

1. By writing articles critical of Israel, I, as a Jew, open myself to accusations of self-hatred or antisemitism. This is such a complex accusation I will not try to deal with it in detail here; I will write more about it another time. In brief, I am proud to be Jewish, but I do not agree with much of the policy and behavior of Israel, the Jewish state. Despite the efforts of many, Jews and others, to blur the distinctions in order to serve their own agendas, dislike of Israel and hatred of Jews need not be synonymous. If I placed Israel off limits because I am Jewish, I would have no right to publish the Ethical Spectacle. One of the major missions of the Spectacle is to expose double standards, not perpetuate them.

2. Those who claim to hold the moral high ground ought to be examined even more closely than those who make no such claim. In large part because of Germany's genocide against the Jews, Israel is shrouded in a fog that, from the outside, may seem like a moral glow. But this fog hides profound hypocrisy, anxiety and (I hope) self-doubt.

Deir Yassin

On April 9, 1948--thus five months prior to the killing of Count Bernadotte-- the combined forces of the Stern Gang and the Irgun (military arm of the Revisionist party, commanded by Menachem Begin, later Prime Minister) carried out reprisals in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. Like the Stern Gang, the Irgun was responsible for many horrors; but Deir Yassin may have been the worst.

The villagers had actually signed a nonaggression pact with a nearby Jewish village when the Stern Gang decided to destroy Deir Yassin to teach the Arabs a lesson for over-running other Jewish settlements. As a senior Irgun officer later said:


The clear aim was to break Arab morale and raise the morale of the Jewish community in Jerusalem which had been hit hard time after time...

The villagers resisted the 120 Jewish attackers, as they had a right to, and a heavy machine gun and a mortar were brought up to end the battle. Then the raiding party entered the village and started behaving like a Nazi Einsatzkommando. Twenty-three men were led off to a quarry and executed in cold blood, and between 90 and 230 others were shot down in the village.

Begin's statement afterwards:


Accept my congratulations on this splendid act of conquest....
News of Deir Yassin spread quickly and was influential in causing much of the Arab population to flee the borders of the newly declared Israeli state. Israel, of course, has built a whole structure of ownership based on the "abandonment" of their houses and lands, as well as arguing ceaselessly that those who fled in 1948 did so needlessly and do not deserve to come back.

(Source for the Deir Yassin information: Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (Harper Perennial, 1987).

What do these two events--the murder of Bernadotte, and "ethnic cleansing" at Deir Yassin--establish? That the state of Israel is rooted in the blood of one of its native populations, the Arabs. Two men, Begin and Shamir, later leaders of their country, were terrorists who planned and executed murders, and a third, Ben-Gurion, knew of murder and made secret deals protecting murderers.

Reverting to the issue of the Holocaust as a shield or an excuse for the Israelis, Israel is not, and has never been, primarily a nation of Holocaust survivors. Political Zionism has its roots in the 19th century and before. While Begin was a refugee from Poland, Ben Gurion had been in Palestine since early in the century, as had many of the early leaders of the new Israeli state. One early right-wing Zionist leader was Vladimir Jabotinsky, who wrote in 1923:


Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important to build, it is important to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot--or else I am through with playing at colonization.

(Quoted in Beit-Hallahmi, Original Sins, (Olive Branch Press 1992), a book by an Israeli professor which I highly recommend. Beit-Hallahmi sums up as follows:


It was easy to make the Palestinians pay for 2,000 years of persecution. The Palestinians, who have felt the enormous power of this vengeance, were not the historical oppressors of the Jews. They did not put Jews into ghettoes and did not force them to wear yellow stars. They did not plan holocausts. But they had one fault. They were weak and defenseless in the face of real military might, so they were the ideal victims for an abstract revenge...

A country founded in blood--built on the backs and the corpses of a group of its inhabitants--is badly off-balance and will never recover, if it does not undertake a terrible soul-searching, a flight from violence and lies. There is a stirring, a yearning for peace and relief from violence today, but it is still being mitigated by hatred, denial, greed, and the desire for revenge. When the Israelis learn to police their own lunatic fringe, can avoid offering with one hand what they withdraw with the other, and face the Palestinians with firm honesty, there will be a chance."

(excerpts)

http://www.spectacle.org/495/deir.html
 
Now I really don't think a Ha'aretz editorial is going to the most impartial way to settle this dispute...

There was a very good article in the Sunday Times (by Marie Colvin) this week (an apologies if this has been mentioned already - no time to review whole thread) which made at least an attempt to find out what happened from a relatively objective standpoint.

What emerged as the most accurate-seeming picture I've seen yet is that:

It was not a massacre - if they wanted to just massacre Palestinians wholesale, they would have just bombed them from a distance thus avoiding any losses on their side.
They did warn people at length to leave their homes in Arabic.
They did, however, shoot first and ask questions later, resulting in far too many civilian deaths.
They did deliberately hamper aid supplies by allowing very limited access which required far too much complication

OK, disagree if you want, but this is about the most fairminded assessment I've seen yet.
 
I'm not exactly why the IDF thinks "we could have killed people from our planes and helicopters but instead we shot them street by street" is any sort of defence. I'm absolutely in the dark why the IDF thinks it's entitled to order people out of their houses to beat and humiliate them. It's unclear to me why the IDF thinks it's got the right to inflict the death penalty on whoever disobeys them as an army of invasion.

I suspect that this entire "debate" over what constitutes a massacre or not (here and in the wider media) is *fantastic* news for the IDF - suddenly everyone's engaged in a discussion about semantics and definitions, at the expense of a focus on the incontrovertible facts:

* lots of Palestinian civilians were killed
* Israeli troops were reponsible for their unnecessary deaths
 
Good comments all. I made similar points on page 2 of this thread JWH, watch the US/Israel manage to tone down the people on the international fact finding mission to the point of uselessness now.
 
It's not much of a defence, but I what I am saying it is not comparable to various actual massacres (as in the intentional mass slaughter of innocent people just because they exist) that people have been using as comparisons.
 
Good comments JWH/Cloo. Let's forget about the "massacre" tag and concentrate on the rather less easily sidestepped issues of indiscriminate killing of civilians, denial of medical aid, failure to protect civilians etc., all of which are spelled out in the Geneva convention.

A war crime is a war crime is a war crime.
 
massacre/smassacre - war crimes were committed

It's not much of a defence, but I what I am saying it is not comparable to various actual massacres (as in the intentional mass slaughter of innocent people just because they exist) that people have been using as comparisons.

sematics is an issue here, as has been pointed out. people think of former yugoslavia and rwanda when they think 'massacre'.

but we have strong arguments for calling it a war crime ...

There was a very good article in the Sunday Times (by Marie Colvin) ... at least an attempt to find out what happened from a relatively objective standpoint.

It was not a massacre - if they wanted to just massacre Palestinians wholesale, they would have just bombed them from a distance thus avoiding any losses on their side.
They did warn people at length to leave their homes in Arabic.
They did, however, shoot first and ask questions later, resulting in far too many civilian deaths.
They did deliberately hamper aid supplies by allowing very limited access which required far too much complication

this was not what Colvin said [http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/article/0,,178-273694,00.html], I posted highlights and a link earlier but to repeat:

Colvin said she is "convinced by claims Israelis opened fire indiscriminately on civilians" and "Israelis had used Palestinians as human shields and had taken families hostage to protect their makeshift posts set up in their houses."

Colvin's and all of the articles in the broadsheets point to a change in tactics, possibly following the loss of 13 israeli soldiers, which lead to the worst abuses.

The Sunday Telegraph [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...21.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/04/21/ixnewstop.html], which is emphatically pro-Israel, said:

"Many died as a result of a change in Israeli tactics. On April 6, with only half the camp under Israeli control, Brig Gen Eyal Shlein, the increasingly frustrated officer running the operation, himself under heavy pressure from superiors to wrap things up swiftly, ordered the deployment of armoured bulldozers to smash down stubborn outposts of resistance and clear broader lanes that tanks could use.

The impact of this decision on Palestinian civilians as they cowered in terror was instant and brutal."

There was a "raw edge of savagery". It said that "human shields [were used] when suspect buildings were being surrounded: "If a sniper sees somebody he knows out there, maybe he won't shoot.""

The Observer [http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,687958,00.html]said:

"Israeli soldiers, speaking anonymously, have a different view. Their version of events is this: the commanders of the operation were complacent. An arrest raid against the camp a month before had gone without a hitch so they assumedJenin would be relatively easy. Instead it turned into vicious fighting on both sides."

"After the 13 Israeli soldiers were killed in a booby-trapped bomb and crossfire ambush, say these reservists, the soldiers simply lost control. It is a version, curiously, given credit by the Palestinian residents of the camp. For their accounts, taken together, describe a breakdown of command at the height of the fighting. "

"Some describe one group of soldiers calling to them to evacuate their homes before destruction then being threatened with being shot by other soldiers who insisted that a curfew was still in force. What they describe is a panic that seems to have taken hold of the Israeli army in Jenin camp, and in its panic it laid the camp to waste. "

"But panic is not an excuse for gross violations of human rights."

Here are the other main pints made in The Observer:

"But a massacre - in the sense it is usually understood - did not take place in Jenin's refugee camp. "

"Whatever crimes were committed here - and it appears there were many - a deliberate and calculated massacre of civilians by the Israeli army was not among them. "

"And what will settle whether what happened in Jenin camp was a war crime is the relationship between those civilians and the Palestinian fighters. "

"For increasingly at issue is a simple distinction. If the refugee camp at Jenin was a population centre that simply harboured fighters - that had fighters in its midst - then, say human rights advocates, Israel had a duty of care during its attack towards the civilians resident there under international law. "

"But if Jenin camp could be proved to be something else, say lawyers for the army, the Geneva Convention might not apply. "

"Already Israel is working hard to define why the destruction in Jenin was something 'other' - exempt from the Convention. "

"It is that something 'other' that Israeli legal sources advising the army are desperately now trying to establish in international opinion. "

"The true crime of Jenin camp is this act of physical erasure. It is covered by Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention in its prohibition on 'the extensive destruction or unlawful appropri ation of property, not justified by military necessity committed either unlawfully or wantonly.' "

"Article 147 mentions other crimes that may be applicable to Jenin: the alleged taking of hostages for human shields by the Israelis; the same army's refusal of access for humanitarian and emergency medical assistance and the deliberate targeting of civilians, particularly by Israeli snipers. But it is the sheer scale of the destruction that Israel will most likely have to answer for. "
 
Happily, there's a substantial case that even if what's happened doesn't fall under the Geneva Convention as war crimes, they'll still be crimes against humanity, which EU states have accepted extrajudicial jurisdiction for.

KISSINGER, HUSAYN, SHARON - all in the same dock!
 
Just to add to what JWH said -

Theres a danger that the extent destruction and death at Jenen becomes the 'test' of the justification of the IDF actions.
This could allow the Israeli state off the hook - the IDF carried out a sustained and brutal campaign of deliberate destruction and terror right accross the occupied territories - with scores of reports of deliberate killing of civilians, denial of humanitarian and medical aid and civilians used as human shields.
The people of palastine have endured weeks of terrifying 'lock down' where leaving your house to get water, food or medical help makes you a legitamate target and having the temerity to try and fight back makes you a terrorist.

Brutal, inhuman, facistic and a terrible injustice?

No fucking argument IMHO.

Wether the final deathtoll from Jenin is officially found to be a massacre is entirely beside the point.
The IDF flattened an area of the city the size of two football pitches to teach the palastinian a brutal lesson - we are the strong, you are the weak. If you defy us - we will destroy you and the world will stand watching and do nothing.
 
Back
Top Bottom