Israel blocks UN Jenin inquiry

What really happened? The myth of Jenin grows

By*MARCUS GEE
****
Saturday, April 27, 2002 –*Page*A17

Well before the dust had settled, the siege of Jenin had become a symbol of Israeli brutality throughout the Arab world and beyond.

Palestinian leaders said 500 of their people had been killed when Israeli troops invaded the West Bank refugee camp. There was talk of massacres and mass graves of the kind seen in Bosnia in the 1990s.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said Israeli soldiers had committed "despicable crimes" in Jenin. The correspondent for The Independent of London accused Israel of "a monstrous war crime." Amnesty International called for an immediate investigation into "the killings of hundreds of Palestinians."

What really happened in Jenin? Less, it would seem, than the original hysterics suggest. About 50 bodies have been found in the rubble. Israel says that perhaps 80 Palestinians were killed in all, and that most were armed fighters, not civilians.

Early reports that said the Israelis had levelled Jenin appear to have been exaggerated. Aerial photographs show that the devastated vistas described in news reports represent an area about 100 metres square, a small corner of the camp.

As for the infamous Israeli massacre, reporters who visited Jenin trying to document it came up empty-handed. The New York Times did dozens of interviews and found "no solid evidence of large-scale, deliberate killing of civilians." The Washington Post said "no evidence has surfaced to support allegations by Palestinian groups and aid organizations of large-scale massacres or executions by Israeli troops."

Did Palestinian civilians die in Jenin? Undoubtedly, and every lost life is a cause for sorrow. But who was really to blame for their deaths?

Israel did not go into Jenin for nothing. Palestinian extremists from hate-mongering groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad had turned it into a launching pad for terror attacks on Israel. Before the Israeli invasion, the camp was a warren of bomb-making factories and terrorist hideouts.

More than 20 of the suicide bombers who have attacked Israel during the recent violence came from there.

One extremist alone, Thabet Mardawi of Islamic Jihad, is thought to have dispatched nine bombers from Jenin, killing a total of 20 Israelis and injuring 150. He will not do it again. Israeli soldiers arrested him in the camp and put him behind bars. They also intercepted 10 suicide bombers who had made farewell videotapes and were ready to strike.

If Israel were as ruthless as its critics say, it would have done to Jenin what the Russians did to the Chechen capital of Grozny. It would have used its superior firepower and pounded the place to rubble with warplanes, tanks and artillery.

Instead, Israel sent its soldiers into the narrow and dangerous streets to search house by house -- a tactic that reduced civilian casualties but put its own men in extreme danger. Twenty-three were killed, making the invasion one of the most costly military operations for Israel since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.

Only after those deaths did the army send in bulldozers to knock down the booby-trapped buildings where terrorists were hiding, and even then it made frequent announcements by loud-hailer that civilians would be allowed to leave, as some did.

That is considerably more than Hamas does when it dispatches killers to blow themselves up in Israeli buses, banquet halls and cafés. Yet militant leaders have the gall to blame Israel for attacking non-combatants.

Perhaps it will come out that Israel did commit misdeeds in Jenin. If so, the perpetrators should be punished. But nothing so far supports the myth of atrocity and massacre that sprang like a wraith from the rubble of the camp.

If anyone is to blame for the destruction visited on Jenin, it is not the Israelis, who are fighting a just, defensive war against terrorism and hate.

It is the Palestinian militants who turned Jenin into a terror base and, when the Israelis came to get them, hid among civilians for protection.

<a href="http://www.globeandmail.com" target="_blank">Globe and Mail</a>

"Isreali brutality".

Why do you keep quoting "Israeli Brutality", Kronos? I know it's in the body of the first paragraph, but I'm just curious as to your intent. Innocent question.

For now, given the Arab street's penchant for wild overstatement, I'm not inclined to believe there was a "massacre" per se (going on what I've read in the WSJ, NYT and other online sources). If there were atrocities, the truth will out, but I'm more appalled at the continued use of "human shields" as a way to up the casualties, thereby giving the appearance of a slaughter.

Because, I'm guessing, that Kronos has picked a side. You know, like picking a favorite sports team.

It's interesting that the word Brutality isn't used quite enough with regard to the Palestinians as well.

Bombs in cafes and other terrorist acts are relatively BRUTAL as well.

And I just love the way the Jewish people are being BRUTAL in Germany and France...and of course right here in my home town where the BRUTAL Jews have had Synagogues burned down and vicious attacks upon their persons.

The Jews -and to a lesser degree, the Isrealis- have been the victims of horrid brutality for over two thousand years. It's like a bully characterizing his victim as brutal after his victim gets one good shot in during the assault.

It's a matter of degree.

And there is nothing wrong with that. Pick a side.

Pro-Isreali
Pro-Palestinian

Which one is correct for you?

Well, in the article above, the writer is clearly subverting the terminology.

I think the mainstream media blasts the Palestinian extremists with equal aplomb; in fact, outside of depicting the (likely necessary) destruction of parts of the Jenin camp, I've found the media to be pretty kind to a military that was, at one point, shooting at them to keep them from covering the story.

I generally don't pick sides in holy wars because I find them silly at their core.

Much like you, I'm certainly no expert on the situation. But there have been wrongs committed by BOTH sides. I see no reason to shrug off a possible Isreali crime just because you're rooting for their "team".

Holy War? If you call the desire of the Palestinian people -and by their support, the rest of the Muslim World- to see the Jewish people wiped off the face of the Earth a "Holy War" then yes, it's a Holy War.

But this is about borders, not God.

Some may believe it, and some may not. There IS a right and wrong side in this conflict. Here's a clue: The Palestinians are not the good guys.

Ok, I'll bite, Call. How come the Palestinians are the bad guys?

I don't get how when someone makes a sweeping negative generalization about Palestinians or Arabs that person is not a racist.

I love how one-sided people have become on this issue.

<img src="http://www.matckh.org/images/hamaskid.jpg" alt="" />

<img src="http://www.gamla.org.il/images/2001/may/blow1.jpg" alt="" />
<img src="http://image.pathfinder.com/time/europe/photoessays/israel_bomb/1.jpg" alt="" />

<img src="http://www.sis.gov.eg/online/images1/p17.jpg" alt="" />

<img src="http://www.masada2000.org/massacre.JPG" alt="" />

Have you noticed the world's regions in conflict?

- India/Pakistan
- Russia/Chechnya
- Israel/Pakistan
- Turkey/Curds/Iraq
- Iraq/Iran
- Uzbekistan/Afghanistan
- China/Xinjiang Muslims
- Columbia
- Moro Islamic Liberation Front/Philippines
- Somalia
- Serbia/Croatia
- Sudan

And I didn't include the countries that harbor terrorist. With the exception of Columbia, and this is going out on a limb, but I say we have a definite pattern.

What is the common theme Nelson?

That they're all non-sequiturs? I think that's it.

Well, almost all of those conflicts (I won't say all cause I'm not sure about a few) involve one or more predominately Arab countries or groups.

You can find conflict in just about every third world nation. Muslims make up a number of third world nations....You can also find conflict in a large parts of Africa...North Korea/South Korea and Im pretty sure Colombia is not the only nation in South America that has conflict.

Wow, Jabba and Ned agree.

And I agree with Jabba, odd.

I am TONY, god of speed. I can do anything.

Not speed as in fast though...

I want to, oh, I want to.

No whey!

Can't stop laughing at Burke's post....

[quote]Ned Fats:
My bad, I should've been more specific: The worlds most "active-combat" zone.

And at the level of Colombia, yes, there are no other countries in South America like it right now. Tell me what other country in South America is getting used to having a bomb-car/truck blowing up every day?

I think refering to the economic troubles of Argentina or the ongoing fued between the union workers and Standard Food Co. in Panama, or even, the Zapatista's enchilada in Mexico, as hot zones, is stretching it a little bit too much.

call, like I said above, WRONGS have been committed by both sides - not just one side.

Here's another comon theme:

Most of those countries have screwed-up borders created by the European empires, or involve conflicts stemming from imperialism.

or

Most of them are poor.

or

Have nothing to do with each other for the most part. Each situation has it's own history.

By your logic we should expect white people to round all the locals in camps and install puppet leaders whenver they visit a country. Granted, Islam has emerged as a dangerous religion(just as South America has emerged as a continent of drug-growers), but this has nothing to do with one's ability to judge Muslim people.