|
|
|
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.
129 responses total.
'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. '
Considering that the US FBI is armed with 10mm handguns one wonders
what a '12.7mm heavy artillery gun' is, not to mention 'hand-held
artillery piece'. Consider that the US military regards the
105mm as 'light artillery'.
I'm guessing that a "12.7mm heavy artillery gun" is a dumb mistranslation of "12.7mm heavy machine gun."
Looks like the UN has learned the lesson of politicians immemorial: appoint the right people and they'll give you any results you want. (Lots of US prosecutors have found that the right expert witnesses will always come through for them, too. Looks like Kofi Annan wanted someone to give the "right" testimony to the hanging judge.) If you believe that this commission could give a fair, unbiased and comprehensive appraisal of the situation, I suppose you also believe that the Meese Commission on porn was fair, unbiased and comprehensive.
this BS kinda gives new meaning to the phrase 'holocaust revisionists'.
The Jenin Probe Ends The United Nations, unhappy about the prospect of seeing Israel exonerated, decides not to investigate Jenin. by David Tell 05/01/2002 12:00:00 AM http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/194lzmsh. asp
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?
It's the difference betwen "fact finding" and "interpreting" those facts. Would you feel comfortable with a person who for years blocked the Red Star of David's inclusion in the ICRC on the grounds that (unlike the Cross and the Crescent) the Star of David is a religious symbol -- even as he has likened the Star of David to a swastika -- drawing conclusions after investigating something that he's not qualified to investigate? Why isn't the UN calling for an investigation to see if it's not just a question of whether Arafat can't or won't stop the terrorism, but if he's behind it?
This response has been erased.
so we just take their word for it. ok. when people get put on trial for a crime and they plead 'not guilty' we should just take their word for it also. it's funny to me that they wouldn't trust the UN. i mean *I* don't trust the UN either - i think they're pretty much controlled by the US - but you'd think that if the UN was going to be dishonest, they'd lie and say their was NOT a massacre if there was one. the US doesn't want to give their kid a spanking. i understand, the UN is a big fat joke .. but not letting them in just make israel look guilty as hell, whether they are or not.
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. :/
Oval, you seem unaware of the UN's anti-Israel history. As I mentioned previously, the last UN Commission published its conclusions even before it set out to investigate the allegations. Its insistance on appointing an unqualified commission makes me question the motives. Can you imagine a court in which a black man is tried by members of the KKK and where forensic evidence is not allowed? But no, you don't have to take Israel's word for it. As I've presented, there are accounts in the Arab media, first hand accounts, which admit that there was no massacre. Amnesty Internation and Human Rights Watch have reached the same conclusion. As I mentioned above, some pundits are saying that the reason the UN is now so willing to give up on the commission is because they'd have to exonerate Israel.
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.
As seldom as I agree with Leeron on anything related to Israel, I do think that Israel has good reason to be suspicious of the UN's neutrality and the ability of a UN-appointed investigatory commission to reach a fair conclusion uninfluenced by political considerations.
I would like anyone's opinion on the takeover of the Church of the Nativity.
I've been a bit disgusted with the news coverage of that issue, too. Every story I hear about it begins with the announcement that Israeli troops continue to besiege the Church of the Nativity, etc.. Curiously little emphasis, relatively speaking, is given to the fact that ~200 armed Palestinian terrorists are actually *occupying* the church..
Decent take on the issue of the Jenin inquiry and the competing interests driving both sides.. http://slate.msn.com/?id=2065250
The news reported today that 31 people were massacred in Algeria. Is the UN putting together a team to go in and investigate?
Oh, silly me. That was in Algeria, not Israel. No need to investigate.
teh UN controlled by the US. that is funny.
I just get the impression they wouldn't have allowed *any* team in. They don't even want journalists around.
Uh, to be fair, who do you think would get the blame if the IDF allowed journalists to prowl around and they got blowed up by a booby trap? Even given the restrictions the media seems to have no trouble getting pictures and actually publishing storys. Gosh, some are even saying that the 'death toll' of the 'massacre' is in the low 50s - pretty close to the number of IDF dead (39?).
Re #21: If you're trying to protect journalists, it's rather counterproduction to shoot at them, isn't it?
News reports I've been hearing (I think this came from CBC news) are that while a massacre probably didn't occur, there may have been several incidents worthy of being call "war crimes".
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.
Makes perfect sense if you assume Arabs are automatically liars. Besides, isn't Israel supposed to be some especially-ethical sort of country? If so, why does Leeron (and other "voices") keep claiming the Arabs do worse things as a sort of excuse for Israeli behavior?
Scott, perhaps you should reread #24 and see if you can respond to something that I did say. I didn't assume "Arabs are automatically liars". But those who claimed there was a massacre -- which they saw with their own eyes, and who then faulted Israel for destruction that was self-imposed may, isn't it legitimate to assume that their latest story isn't true, either? Some of these same people have asked western reporters to take pictures of them posing as dead in their own homes. And I've heard of video, taken by a surveilance drone, showing some "victims" coming back to life as soon as the reporters leave). To the contrary, it appears that some people here (like elsewhere) are always quick to assume that the Jews are lying. When Israel said there was no massacre, they scoffed and grasped for any circumstancial evidence they could find. When Israel said the buildings were booby-trapped these people said "suuure". If YOU were one of these people, why do you think that is?
" If YOU were one of these people, why do you think that is? " Probably because you're the person I discuss the conflict with the most?
(from an email I received) ----- Subject: FW: True story from Jenin THIS IS AN EMAIL ACCOUNT FROM A FRIEND'S COUSIN IN ISRAEL. Date: Tue, Apr 30, 2002, 10:42 AM I'm writing this email after having returned last night from the emergency army call up that sweetly interrupted my life 3 weeks ago. I'm writing this email for simple reasons, to tell you the truth about what happened in Jenin over the last 2-3 weeks and to share some of the stories and incidents that we had. It's pretty sad seeing and hearing the lies that CNN, BBC and all the others have been feeding the world when you have seen a completely different picture yourself. Feel free to pass this email around and send me any feedback or questions. Let me just get one thing cleared, there was no massacre in Jenin, I repeat no massacre in Jenin!!! (I'll get back to this later) My reserve battalion was stationed on the northern and eastern border of Jenin with the purpose of ensuring the enclosure of the area during the Defensive Shield Operation took place. We were divided amongst a number of roadblocks and defensive positions with the main purpose of preventing terrorists leaving Jenin to carry out attacks inside Israel and also from escaping during the operation. We were also responsible for monitoring the entrance of the Press and humanitarian aid going into Jenin, and also Palestinians needing to leave Jenin for humanitarian reasons. I myself together with eleven other soldiers manned a small roadblock at the northern tip of Jenin, which was one of the main thoroughfares for traffic entering and exiting the area. Jenin is not a big town. The refugee camp is a small part of Jenin and the pictures repeatedly shown on TV are of a small section (10% -15%) of the refugee camp that was destroyed. The refugee camp is where the terrorists have mainly operated and harboured factories and storage facilities for weapons, explosive belts etc. Many of the recent suicide bombers have strapped themselves up in this refugee camp. What is also very fascinating is that UNWRA (United Nations Work and Relief Agency - part of the UN) has been responsible for the refugee camps over the last 50 years and has allowed terrorist infrastructure to flourish under its nose. In the fighting that took place in the refugee camp, children were used as human shields by the terrorists. One of the brigade commanders told us this last Saturday night that they were shot at in the small alleys of the camp. They returned fire only to hear the cries of young children to which they immediately stopped shooting and prayed that they had not killed any children. They hadn't. The armies respect and consideration for the life's of innocent civilians is of a high standard. For this reason, 23 of our own boys were killed in the Jenin fighting. If we had no regard for the life's of innocent civilians, 23 sons, husbands and fathers would be at home with their families now. They were the price we paid for the high moral and ethical standards upheld during the fighting. During the week of the incursion into Jenin the area was a closed military zone. However contrary to what was reported, humanitarian aid was allowed in and I myself personally checked many of the hundreds of trucks that were allowed in to deliver supplies to the Palestinians. This was carefully coordinated with the army to ensure that innocent civilians would receive the supplies and to minimise the risks of those entering the areas. For a few days after the fighting had stopped, the area was closed off to the press. This is when the rumours of the massacre began despite the army press giving detailed briefing sessions to the media on the situation. So why was the area closed to the press and what did we seemingly have something to hide? Simply, the refugee camp had been booby trapped by the terrorists and minefields awaited those that entered. Soldiers inside the refugee camp told me of not being able to move 5 meters at a time without having to diffuse another pipe bomb or mine. Many of the houses destroyed were done so by bombs planted by the very residents of the camp. Some of the dead bodies were also booby trapped with grenades and mines awaiting the Israeli soldiers. (The Palestinian death toll stands at below 40 with maybe another 20 or so buried in the rubble of which most has been cleared up. This was also told to us by embarrassed reporters who entered the area eagerly awaiting to report an Israeli massacre of Palestinians only to be disappointed to find minimal destruction.) The media. Last Sunday while myself and my good friend Ben were on duty at >the roadblock at the time when no press were allowed to enter Jenin, we spotted a jeep trying to evade the roadblock through an adjacent field. We managed to stop the jeep and discovered a group of French Journalists who had managed to enter Jenin and were now trying to leave. We followed the normal procedure of questioning them, checking their vehicle and identification. This process sometimes takes a while because we have to phone another army base who then checks the identities with the Israeli authorities which includes the intelligence operations. Anyway, it turned out that one of the supposed French journalists is actually a Palestinian terrorist on Israel's wanted list. He was taken away by the police together with the other real French journalists. Bet you never heard about that one on TV. Last Thursday, friends of mine on duty at another outpost a few kilometres away from me spotted two young kids walking in the middle of the day with black backpacks on their backs. The two kids entered an abandoned structure about 800 meters away from the outpost and left without the bags. The kids thought they had gone unnoticed. It was later discovered that the bags contained weapons, explosives, an Israeli army uniform with a red paratrooper beret. The plan was for a terrorist to pick up the loot at night, dress up as an Israeli soldier and attack the outpost. We had already received intelligence reports 5 days earlier warning of a terrorist dressing up as a soldier and entering one of the outposts. Avi, a good friend of mine studying together with me at Bar Ilan was stationed in Nablus (Shchem) during this operation and told me the following: They took over a house in Nablus as a stronghold in order for the operation to clear out the terrorist infrastructure there. While in the house, they did not use the electricity to charge their cell phones. They did not touch or eat any food left in the house. They made a concerted effort not to use any furniture in the house. When they left the house a few days ago during the pullout of Nablus, they cleaned the house and left money on the table. I have heard this reported from soldiers that were also in Beit Lechem, Tulkarm, Kalkilya and Jenin. On Monday morning this week, a UN bus entered Jenin carrying a UN rescue team from Britain. The team included doctors and other rescue personnel who get dispatched around the world to help with rescue operations. Four hours later the bus returned through our roadblock and they stopped and we had a chance to chat a little. The first thing they said is that this was the biggest waste of time for them and they would be catching the next flight out of Israel. One of the doctors told us that one of the "massacred" bodies he examined was that of a man that had been dead for two years. What a shame that the Palestinians dug him up to add to the death toll. As my friends and I packed up yesterday ready to head for home we joked at how the whole world considers us to be monsters and how one day we might all be charged for war crimes. We felt good for having served our country once again and we hope that something was achieved in this operation. What lies ahead is still uncertain. What became so clear to me is the importance of seeing things in the right context and perspective. If all that happened these last 3 weeks was an Israeli incursion into the Palestinian areas, then yes, maybe we don't look so good in the worlds eyes. But looking in the context of the history of Israel and our longing to live peacefully side by side with our Arab neighbours, we cannot let terror to exist and destroy our dream. I pray and hope that new Palestinian leadership emerges that will want to make this world a better place for its people. Saul Kramer
Getting to #0, anybody whose thesis is that Jenin can be a test case for the new International Criminal Court is more than a bit confused. That court will not have any jurisdiction over events which occur prior to its officila formation, and unless somehow the event at Jenin occurred after July 1, 2002, that's a bit of a problem. But if you thought #0 was a bit off base, the Weekly Standard editorial presented by Leeron is laughable. One does not have to look very hard in the Israeli media to realize that Israel saw no chance that it would escape being held accountable for war crimes. And if you follow the Israeli media, you will also have read Israeli officers describe the operation as indefensible, and admissions to widespread looting and vandalism by Israeli soldiers. You will also learn that the general understanding of why the inquiry was called off was intense U.S. diplomatic pressure. I find it hard to believe that Leeron believes the nonsense he spouted in #7 - that a diplomat's argument that political symbols should not be allowed on Red Cross helmets because that would have resulted, among other things, in the Nazi swastika on Red Cross helmets during WWII, is somehow a comparison of the Magen David to a swastika. Is Leeron that ignorant, or that dishonest? Incidentally, the "Red Cross" is not a religious symbol - it is an inverted Swiss flag. In #11, Leeron seems to be alluding to Israel's attack on a UN refugee camp in Qana. Given that they had people on the ground and among the victims, perhaps it is not surprising that they formulated an initial reaction to that attack, even before the official investigation concluded that it was probably intentional. beady - in terms of "getting the blame", how many reporters have been killed covering the conflict? How many wounded? How much coverage has been given to deaths, attacks, and injuries on reporters? Little to none? Your speculation simply doesn't accord with the facts. http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/ap05-03-114655.asp?reg=MIDEAST It is interesting to note that although it has been widely documented that Israel used Palestinian civilians - including children - as human shields in Jenin, human rights investigators have found *no* evidence for Israel's propaganda that any Palestinian militants used human shields. None at all. I appreciate that Israel doesn't like negative publicity, no matter how soundly it deserves criticism, but how does lying help? For more information: Ha'aretz - "Dishonorable Conduct in War http://news.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=158010 The Guardian - Across West Bank, daily tragedies go unseen http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,706185,00.html Human Rights Watch - Israel/Occupied Territories: Jenin War Crimes Investigation Needed http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/05/jenin0503.htm
Aaron, why do you think the Swiss put a cross on their flag? Because it was a cool shape that looks good in white on red, or because it has religious significance?
Baruch Goldstein made them do it.
(new theory: klg is a pseudo of happyboy)
darn
Alas, most of Aaron's response has the credibility of saying that it is not a Cross on the Swiss flag. I suppose it didn't cross his mind that the Star of David (which, unlike the menorah, is a national and not a religious symbol) could similarly be derived from the Israeli flag. I wasn't talking about Qana, but just because there were UN people at the scene -- who were not members of the commission of inquiry -- how would that justify the commission publishing conclusions before it even arrived at the scene to begin its investigation? (But no, I wasn't talking about Qana. Odd, however, that there are so many such examples.) Aaron, do you know anyone who has argued that the UN Commission was qualified to investigate Jenin? Why is it that so many people considered it a kangaroo court? (And yes, your insistence that it's not a Cross on the Swiss flag, and presumably that the red crescent is also not a religious symbol, is par for the kangaroo course.) Shouldn't the UN investigate if Arafat is "unwilling" or "unable" to stop the terrorism -- or, as the evidence is mounting, that he is behind the terrorism of the past 19 months? That he is the "supreme leader" of Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade?
Leeron, I am sorry that you hate the truth so much, but it remains the truth. The symbol of the Red Cross is an inverted Swiss Flag. You can check all the official sources you like - they will confirm that truth. I was not justifying the Red Cross decision - I find Israel's refusal to choose a different symbol to be petulant, and I find the Red Cross's refusal to accept the Magen David to be silly and childish. I was merely pointing out that you were being *incredibly* dishonest in your misrepresentation of the statements of a well-respected diplomat. Very few people, Leeron, have argued that the UN team was not qualified to investigate Jenin. It had a retired American general as one of its members, and on Israel's whinging Annan appointed additional military advisors. Let's not pretend, however, that Israel refused to allow the fact-finding mission because of a lack of military members. The issues that could not be resolved were its desire to dictate which witnesses could testify before the inquiry, and its desire to limit the findings which the inquiry could issue. I realize that you are terrified of the world recognizing Ariel Sharon for the brutal war criminal he is, but the world already recognizes Arafat as a corrupt and inept "leader" who has throughout his career attempted to exploit violence for political gain. What would a UN investigation of Arafat reveal, other than the fact that "Sharon the merciless and Arafat the corrupt have nothing meaningful to offer each other". http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=291708
Weasel out of this one, aaron: http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/home/geninf/flag.html " Among the flags of contemporary European countries, that of Switzerland is one of the most ancient and one of the most modern. It has a white cross in a red field; the cross is the same length on all sides and each arm is one-sixth longer than its width. The flag looks back upon 700 years of history. To trace its origin, one must go right back to the very beginning of the Confederation. Already in the early Middle Ages, the cross was, more or less, commonly used on coins and seals and, as a symbol of the Christian faith . . . " . . . The use of the red cross on a white background, which is actually the Swiss flag reversed, was granted to the International Red Cross to commemorate the organization founded by Henri Dunant, citizen of Geneva."
And when you're through with that, please read the following item from the UN's web site and point out for us which one of the 3 people identified as members of the UN mission is actually an American general. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=3574&Cr=jenin&Cr1=fact "Members of Jenin fact-finding team leave Geneva after Annan disbands group "3 May - Following last night's decision by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan to disband a UN fact-finding team to the Jenin refugee camp, members of the group today left Geneva where they had been preparing for the mission. "According to Mr. Annan's spokesman, the Secretary-General had received a reply to the letter he had sent yesterday to the head of the fact-finding mission, former President of Finland Marti Ahtisaari, and his team, thanking them for "the dedication, energy and time that they have given the United Nations." "In their letter, the three principal members of the team, which in addition to Mr. Ahtisaari included former UN High Commissioner for Refugees Sadako Ogata and Cornelio Sommaruga, former President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), informed the Secretary-General of the planning activities undertaken in Geneva. . . ."
"members of" "principal members" Neither of those statements says that there are only 3 members, nor does it say anything about additional technicians, experts, etc.
Kofi Annan was going to add a retired American General as a principle member of the team, but then reneged on that -- reducing him to mere advisor status (meaning he would have no direct voice). While Aaron has explained that the Red Cross is not based on a religious symbol but rather the Swiss flag (which is based on a religious symbol), he fails to explain why the ICRC accepted the Red Crescent -- based on Islam's religious symbol. Nor why Israel can't use the same "reasoning" he employs, that the Star of David is not a religious symbol but is just representative of the Israeli flag. Especially since, unlike the Cross, the Star of David is a National (not Religious) symbol. I'm also not sure I understand Aaron's "logic" why it would serve no purpose for the UN to investigate the level of Arafat's complicity in Arab terror. While the world is debating if Arafat "can't" or "won't" stop terrorism (or even try), wouldn't it shed much light on the debate if it turns out that his organizations, which are behind more than half of the acts of terrorism, were actually carrying out his orders? Is this really just a case of mass delusion? We don't want to know that Arafat is behind the terrorism because, well, it would underline the West's hypocrisy and challenge the notion that it is not our job to determine the Palestinian Arab leadership -- even as we push for a "regime change" in Afghanistan and Iraq? Lest anyone forget, it was Aaron who repeated Tikkun's Rabbi Lerner's point that the worst thing Israel has done to the Palestinian people was to impose Yasser Arafat upon them. Except that Israel did no such thing: against its wishes it was forced to deal with Arafat at the Madrid conference and it agreed to allow elections. Lacking any serious opposition (sound familiar?) Arafat was elected. Not that this makes him a legitimate ruler -- he won't ever be up for re-election as he has cancelled further elections making him dictator for life. Since Israel's military operation -- following Arafat's last-minute rejection of Zinni's bridging proposals and the Passover massacre (more civilians were murdered in minutes than were inadvertently killed in Jenin over the course of a week, not that the UN bothered to condemn or investigate this despicable act) -- acts of terrorism in Israel are down 80%, the murder-by-terror rate down 97%. Israelis are "celebrating" by hoping that this will lead to a rekindling of the peace process. And yes, despite Sharon's legitimate concerns over the suitability of Arafat as a partner in the peace process, Israel will again try to make a deal with this devil. But as even Colin Powell has intimated, this is Arafat's last chance.
| Last 40 Responses and Response Form. |
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss