Why Israel isn't interested in UN investigation of Jenin

Apr 29 07:20 UTC 2002

                        

           TROUBLE IN THE HOLY LAND
           Jenin inquiry a witch hunt? 
           'Expert' forensic adviser to U.N.
           commission held back info to
           'prove' Kosovo 'massacre'

           Posted: April 29, 2002
           1:00 a.m. Eastern

           By Aleksandar Pavic
           © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com 

           The forensic expert picked to
           advise the United Nations Jenin
           inquiry commission, charged with
           determining whether Israelis
           conducted a "massacre" there, was
           previously appointed by the
           European Union and NATO to
           investigate claims that a
           "massacre" took place in the
           Kosovo village of Racak in January
           1999 - at which time she allegedly
           withheld vital information and thus
           helped usher in the NATO
           bombing of Yugoslavia and
           subsequent troop deployment in its
           southern Kosovo province. 

           Finnish pathologist Dr. Helena
           Ranta was named as an adviser to
           the three-man panel appointed by
           Secretary General Kofi Annan last
           week. 

           The commission was named in
           response to Palestinian claims of
           civilian slaughter and mass graves
           in the wake of Israel's successful
           search-and-destroy mission
           targeting terrorists and their
           infrastructure in several West
           Bank towns. 

           Israel decided yesterday not to
           grant the U.N. team access,
           sparking a meeting by the Security
           Council which decided to give
           Israel an additional day to
           reconsider. 

           'Crime against humanity' 

           Ranta, when she was head of the
           EU Forensic Expert Team, was
           engaged to investigate reports that
           Yugoslav armed forces slaughtered
           Albanian civilians in the Kosovo
           village of Racak on Jan. 15, 1999. 

           Following the forensic
           investigation by her team, at a
           March 17, 1999, news conference,
           Ranta referred to the Racak deaths
           as a "crime against humanity,"
           charging that the "victims" were
           "unarmed civilians," according to
           BBC reports. 

           Despite contradictory results
           gathered by two other forensic
           teams - as well as doubts
           concerning the events in Racak
           raised by European media,
           including the Paris Le Monde and
           the London Times - one week
           later, NATO began its 78-day
           bombing campaign against
           Yugoslavia. 

           In the midst of the campaign, on
           May 22, 1999, the "International
           Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia,"
           or ICTY, issued indictments for
           "Crimes against Humanity and
           Violations of the Laws or Customs
           of War" against Yugoslav
           President Slobodan Milosevic and
           four of his associates for their part
           in the alleged Racak massacre. 

           Although Ranta made the charges
           that directly led to the NATO
           intervention, her team's full report
           was suppressed by the U.N. and
           the EU for a full two years, until
           February 2001. When it was finally
           published in Forensic Science
           International, the report revealed
           that there was no evidence of a
           massacre, even though the OSCE
           observer mission in Kosovo, led by
           U.S. diplomat William Walker,
           was quick to come to such a
           conclusion. 

           However, by that time, Yugoslavia
           had been bombed, leaving its
           infrastructure heavily damaged and
           part of its territory occupied, while
           its former president currently
           stands trial at The Hague for
           charges that include the Racak
           "massacre." 

           As an April 18, 1999, Washington
           Post article stated: "Racak
           transformed the West's Balkan
           policy as singular events seldom
           do." 

           This echoes the words of Daniel
           Bethlehem, a Cambridge
           University international legal
           expert and Israel's external adviser
           on the U.N. Jenin inquiry. As
           reported by Ha'aretz, in a
           memorandum sent to the Israeli
           government, Bethlehem writes: "If
           the committee's findings uphold
           the allegations against Israel - even
           on poor reasoning - this will
           fundamentally alter the dynamics
           of the Israeli-Palestinian
           leadership and may make it
           impossible for Israel to resist calls
           for an international force, the
           immediate establishment of a
           Palestinian state and the
           prosecution of individuals said to
           have committed the alleged acts." 

           Thus, the lessons of Racak and the
           role of Dr. Helena Ranta
           concerning it may be highly
           indicative of the direction in which
           the U.N. Jenin inquiry is headed. 

           Withheld information 

           As the Hague indictment against
           Milosevic and his associates
           claims: "On or about 15 January
           1999, in the early morning hours
           the village of Racak ... was
           attacked by forces of the FRY
           (Yugoslavia) and Serbia. After
           shelling by ... [Yugoslavian forces]
           the Serb police entered the village
           later in the morning and began
           conducting house-to-house
           searches. Villagers who attempted
           to flee from the Serb police were
           shot throughout [Racak]. A group
           of approximately 25 men
           attempted to hide in a building, but
           were discovered by the Serb police.
           They were beaten and then were
           removed to a nearby hill, where
           the policemen shot and killed
           them." 

           In her March 17, 1999, press
           conference and statement, Ranta
           herself claimed that "... there were
           no indications that the people ...
           [autopsied were] ... other than
           unarmed civilians. ..." 

           Yet she failed to mention the fact
           that she had not performed
           forensic testing on the hands of the
           dead, nor the fact that it was
           established that the bodies were
           shot from various distances and
           directions - and none at close
           range, which would contradict the
           version that the deceased were
           "unarmed civilians" who were
           summarily executed. 

           Furthermore, as pointed out by
           Chris Soda of Yugoslaviainfo,
           Ranta used the Scanning Electron
           Microscope with an Energy
           Dispersive X-Ray analyzer
           (SEM/EDX) method, for which
           samples must be obtained from the
           skin surfaces of a victim at the
           scene. Any delay in obtaining
           residues, movement of bodies or
           washing can diminish or destroy
           gunshot residues. 

           Having used this method, Ranta
           concluded that the findings for any
           traces of firearms use were
           "negative." Yet, contrary to the
           standards required by the
           procedure, she did not start
           analyzing the bodies until six days
           after the time of death.
           Furthermore, according to her own
           admission, the bodies had been
           both moved and turned over
           during that time. 

           During her press conference,
           Ranta also made the claim that "...
           medicolegal investigations cannot
           give a conclusive answer to the
           question whether there was a
           battle [that took place]," but
           nevertheless concluded that the
           victims were non-combatants
           because, among other things, "...
           no ammunition was found in
           [their] pockets." She declined,
           however, to reveal a fact
           extensively recorded by various
           media - that the entire operation
           had been filmed by the AP news
           service and observed by the OSCE
           and print media reporters, whom
           the Yugoslav forces had actually
           invited to come. For on that day,
           Yugoslav forces were closing in on
           Albanian Muslim KLA terrorists
           who had waged numerous murder
           attacks against police and civilians
           in the previous months, and whose
           stronghold Racak actually was. 

           The AP film shows extensive
           footage of battle between Yugoslav
           and KLA forces, and there is also a
           great deal of published media
           testimony to the fact that an armed
           battle took place in which
           Yugoslav forces reported having
           killed "15 KLA members." Ranta
           never refers to this in her
           statement, nor does the ICTY
           indictment. 

           The OSCE observers that entered
           the village after the battle found no
           evidence of any "massacre," nor of
           any civilians killed, just as they
           received no such testimony from
           any of the villagers. It was not until
           the next day that journalists were
           directed by a KLA member to a
           gully just outside the village in
           which the bodies lay. 

           Still, many of the journalists
           present, such as Renaud Girard of
           the French Le Figaro daily, noted
           the absence of shell casings and
           blood at the "massacre site."
           Another French paper, Le Monde,
           wondered how it was possible for
           the Serb police to dig a trench and
           then kill villagers at close range
           while under fire by KLA forces. 

           The questions piled on. Yet Ranta
           never addressed them, and in fact
           ignored the evidence that would
           have set the context for the deaths
           that occurred at Racak. 

           Just two days later, on March 19,
           1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton
           addressed his nation in order to
           prepare it for the air strikes against
           Yugoslavia: "As we prepare to act,
           we need to remember the lessons
           we have learned in the Balkans. ...
           We should remember what
           happened in the village of Racak
           back in January - innocent men,
           women and children taken from
           their homes to a gully, forced to
           kneel in the dirt, sprayed with
           gunfire - not because of anything
           they had done, but because of who
           they were." 

           Yet, Le Figaro reported that
           Yugoslav police had found "1
           12.7mm heavy artillery gun, 2
           hand-held artillery pieces, 2 sniper
           rifles, and about 30 Chinese-made
           Kalashnikov rifles" in Racak after
           the battle. 

           In addition, another forensic team
           composed of Yugoslav and Belarus
           pathologists, whose findings were
           ignored by most major media, the
           U.N., NATO and the E.U., found
           that 37 of the 40 bodies discovered
           (not 45 as stated in the Hague
           indictment) had recently fired
           weapons, and that they had shown
           signs of exposure to cold, outdoor
           conditions - which contradicted
           the ICTY claim that more than
           half the dead had been civilians
           hiding in a building, whom the
           Yugoslav forces discovered,
           dragged to the ravine and then
           "executed." 

           Finally, the OSCE
           chairman-in-office, Norwegian
           Foreign Minister Knut Vollebaek,
           in his own March 17, 1999,
           statement, wrote: "Dr. Ranta has
           also concluded that there is no
           indication of post-mortem
           tampering with bodies or
           fabrication of evidence.
           Furthermore, testing for gunshot
           residues on the victims has been
           negative. Minister Vollebaek notes
           Dr. Ranta's conclusion that there
           was no indication of the victims
           being other than unarmed
           civilians. On this basis the
           Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE
           reiterates his statement of 16
           January [which is 5 days before
           Dr. Ranta's team arrived to the
           scene], in which he condemned
           the Racak atrocity against innocent
           civilians." 

           In light of Ranta's controversial
           record, the fact that the U.N. has
           named her "to develop accurate
           information regarding recent
           events in the Jenin refugee camp"
           will no doubt be regarded as a bad
           omen by many Israelis. 

           As Israeli adviser Daniel
           Bethlehem said in Ha'aretz, Israel
           is "for all practical purposes ...
           faced with a war crimes
           investigation." 

           In fact, based on the precedents
           set by the Tribunal for former
           Yugoslavia in setting up the Racak
           indictment, it may develop that
           Jenin becomes the "test case"
           inaugurating the work of the
           recently instituted permanent
           International Criminal Tribunal in
           The Hague. The presence of Dr.
           Helena Ranta makes this a likely
           scenario. 

response 2 of 129:

Apr 29 13:52 UTC 2002

I'm guessing that a "12.7mm heavy artillery gun" is a dumb mistranslation of
"12.7mm heavy machine gun."

response 4 of 129:

May 1 00:21 UTC 2002

this BS kinda gives new meaning to the phrase 'holocaust revisionists'.

response 6 of 129:

May 2 13:51 UTC 2002

It's obvious it wasn't going anywhere.

I'm a bit puzzled by the Israeli insistance that they didn't want the team
to be "making conclusions."  What's the point of investigating *anything* if
you aren't allowed to draw conclusions from it?

response 10 of 129:

May 2 21:41 UTC 2002

I think it's great that Israel won't let the UN push them around.  If you're
a country you need to protect your rights, just like Iraq keeping out the arms
control inspectors.  :/

response 12 of 129:

May 3 00:04 UTC 2002

Re #10: Israel usually gets treated as the "special child" when it comes
to such things.  We winked and looked the other way when they decided to
build nuclear weapons, too.  We would have objected to pretty much any
other nation doing so.

response 14 of 129:

May 3 01:34 UTC 2002

I would like anyone's opinion on the takeover of the Church of the 
Nativity.  

response 16 of 129:

May 3 02:24 UTC 2002

  Decent take on the issue of the Jenin inquiry and the competing interests
  driving both sides..  http://slate.msn.com/?id=2065250

response 18 of 129:

May 3 02:35 UTC 2002

Oh, silly me.  That was in Algeria, not Israel.  No need to investigate.

response 20 of 129:

May 3 03:45 UTC 2002

I just get the impression they wouldn't have allowed *any* team in.  They
don't even want journalists around.

response 22 of 129:

May 3 12:44 UTC 2002

Re #21: If you're trying to protect journalists, it's rather
counterproduction to shoot at them, isn't it?

response 24 of 129:

May 3 14:32 UTC 2002

Yes, I've heard these very nebulous charges of unspecified "war crimes".
I've once even heard an elaboration of them. I'll get to that shortly.

David, are you simply avoiding the fact that both Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch have concluded their investigations -- and found
absolutely no evidence of a "massacre"?

Initially the charge was that 500, maybe thousands of innocent civilians
were "massacred" by Israeli soldiers at Jenin. So far a total of 52 bodies
have been recovered (and this number has held stable for the past week).
The majority of these bodies were armed men, engaged in the fighting.

Without admitting that the "massacre" was a work of fiction, the same
voices turned to claiming that there was too much destruction. But then
it was learned (from fighters in the camp) that 1000-2000 bombs and
booby-traps were set by the terrorists in about 50 houses. Much of the
destruction was self-imposed (but no one is curious about this cause of
destruction of civilian areas -- or the illegal acts of perfidity used
to trap and kill Israeli soldiers).

So now the voices have turned to nebulous "war crimes" charges which are
very hard to refute due to their unspecific nature. Yet a senior HRW
investigator, interviewed on BBC radio yesterday, stepped back from such
a wide charge and talked only of some irregularities. Specifically, the
use of civilians as human shields -- based on reports by some Arabs.

So the same people who lied about the massacre and the destruction, we
should now simply take their word for it -- or equivocate that it's
their word against the IDF's word and we can't really know who's lying?

It gets sicker. With the exception of one incident where Israel soldiers
*allegedly* shot from behind civilians, the "shield" accusations refer to
Israel soldiers making Arab civilians walk in front of them. Perhaps this
was when they were leading them to disarm terrorist bombs in their homes?
In any event, I'm not sure why there is an expectation that a soldier would
turn his back on a potentially hostile person (recall reports in the Arab
press of children filling their school-bags with explosives and throwing
them at soldiers -- and a 10-year old suicide bomber). Does anyone expect
that the IDF should have walked backwards in front of these civilians?

I suppose it is somewhat silly to investigate terrorists for violations
of international law, but it is rather ironic that Israel is being accused
of using civilians as shields when the terrorist chose to base themselves
and make a suicidal stand in a civilian neighborhood -- and according to
some reports (in the Arab press!) prohibited civilians from leaving some
areas -- using them as a shield against the IDFs superior fire-power.