UN Report on Jenin and Other Palestinian Cities, and its Limitations

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

UN Report on Jenin and Other Palestinian Cities, and its Limitations

Amnesty International:
UN Secretary-General's Report on Jenin Underscores the Need for a Full Inquiry

Media Distortions and the UN Report on Jenin

Anglo-US Military Deals Progress within Global Crisis

Following a request by the United Nations General Assembly, Secretary-General Kofi Annan released a report yesterday, August 1, on the events surrounding the Israeli military "incursions" earlier this year into the West Bank town of Jenin and other Palestinian cities in what proved to be the most extensive such operation by Israel in a decade.

"While some of the facts may be in dispute, I think it is clear that the Palestinian population have suffered, and are suffering, the humanitarian consequences, which is very severe," the Secretary-General said in response to a reporter’s question as he entered UN Headquarters in New York. "I would hope that both parties would draw the right lessons from this tragic episode and take steps to end the cycle of violence, which is killing innocent civilians on both sides," he said.

The most severe limitation of the report is that it was written without a visit to Jenin or the other Palestinian cities, as the Israeli government refused to co-operate with the UN fact-finding mission, which was proposed by the Secretary-General and backed by the Security Council in order to establish the facts on the ground. The report covers a period from the beginning of March to May 7, the day the Assembly adopted a resolution decrying Israel's refusal.

In its findings, the report was forced to rely on "available resources and information", as requested by the Assembly. Such sources included submissions from six UN Member States and Observer Missions, documents in the public domain, and papers submitted by non-governmental organisations. The Palestinian Authority did submit information, while the government of Israel did not. The report makes use of publicly available information from the Israeli government.

Setting out the context of the situation in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory, the report describes what it terms the security and humanitarian responsibilities of both parties and charts the rising violence since September 2000, which had by May 7, 2002, resulted in the deaths of 441 Israelis and 1,539 Palestinians.

Operation Defensive Shield, began on March 29 with an "incursion" into Ramallah, followed by entry into Tulkarm and Qalqilya on April 1, Bethlehem on April 2, and Jenin and Nablus on April 3. By April 3, six of the largest cities in the West Bank, and their surrounding towns, villages and refugee camps, were occupied by the Israeli military.

The consequences of Operation Defensive Shield lasted far longer than its officially announced conclusion on April 21, the report notes. Much of the fighting took place in areas heavily populated by civilians, and in many cases heavy weaponry was used. As a result, the populations of the cities suffered severe hardships, many of which have sharply intensified since the events covered in the report. There has been a near-complete cessation of all productive activity in the main West Bank centres of manufacturing, construction, commerce and private and public services, exacerbating the severe decline in living standards over the last 18 months.

The report describes what the Israeli government terms its concerns that a number of the cities served as bases for Palestinian terrorists and their attacks against Israel. It also quotes allegations that Palestinian groups had widely booby-trapped civilian homes to target IDF personnel. It quotes the Palestinian Authority as acknowledging that a number of Palestinian fighters resisted the Israeli military assault. The United Nations did not have a mandate to monitor and report on conditions in Israel, as it does in the occupied Palestinian territory, and, therefore, did not have detailed information about the broader impact on Israel’s society and economy.

As for the death toll, the report quotes figures that the IDF lost 30 soldiers during Operation Defensive Shield. During the reviewed period, Israel also endured some 16 bombings, the majority of them suicide attacks, resulting in the death of 100 persons and injuries to scores of others.

On the Palestinian side, 497 were killed and 1,447 wounded in the course of the IDF reoccupation of Palestinian areas from March 1 to May 7 and in the immediate aftermath. Most accounts estimate that between 70 and 80 Palestinians, including about 50 civilians, were killed in Nablus, where four IDF soldiers lost their lives. In Jenin, by the time of the IDF's withdrawal and the lifting of the curfew on April 18, at least 52 Palestinians, possibly half of them civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were dead.

By May 6, an alleged 7,000 Palestinians had been arrested under Operation Defensive Shield, many of them held for long periods with little or no outside contact. In many instances, the IDF followed a pattern of using loudspeakers to summon males between the ages of 15 and 45. According to human rights reports, significant numbers of the men arrested were blindfolded and handcuffed, not allowed to use a lavatory, and deprived of food or blankets during their first day in detention.

There were numerous reports of the IDF compelling Palestinian civilians to accompany them during house searches, check suspicious subjects, stand in the line of fire, and in other ways protect soldiers from danger. Witnesses claim that this was done in the Jenin camp and other Palestinian cities. The government of Israel has denied that its military personnel systematically engaged in this practice, but on May 5 issued "an unequivocal order ... that forces in the field are absolutely forbidden to use civilians as a means of ‘living shield’".

Operation Defensive Shield resulted in the widespread destruction of Palestinian private and public property. The IDF is reported to have used bulldozers, tank shelling and rocket firing, at times from helicopters, in populated areas. The report points to the fact that over 2,800 refugee housing units were damaged and 878 homes were demolished or destroyed during the period covered, leaving more than 17,000 people homeless or in need of shelter rehabilitation. Nablus was especially hard hit in terms of physical destruction, notably in its Old City, which contained many buildings of cultural, religious and historic significance.

United Nations agencies and other international agencies, when allowed into Ramallah and other Palestinian cities, documented extensive physical damage to Palestinian Authority civilian property. That damage included the destruction of office equipment, such as computers and photocopying machines, that did not appear to be related to military objectives. While denying that such destruction was systematic, the IDF has admitted that its personnel engaged in some acts of vandalism, and is carrying out some related prosecutions.

Round-the-clock curfews were imposed in cities, refugee camps, towns and villages, affecting an estimated 1 million people. Two hundred twenty thousand urban residents lived under curfew regimes for over a week, without vital supplies and access to first aid. In Nablus, for example, the IDF imposed a curfew on April 3 and completely lifted it only on April 22.

During and immediately after the incursions, the report finds that Palestinian civilians suffered from prolonged delays in medical attention for the wounded and sick. In Jenin, especially, from April 11-15, United Nations and other humanitarian agencies petitioned and negotiated with the IDF for access to the camp, and made many attempts to send in convoys, to no avail. Many of the reports of human rights groups contain accounts of wounded civilians waiting days to reach medical assistance, and being refused medical treatment by IDF soldiers. In some cases, people died as a result of these delays.

The report cites three instances where Israeli forces attacked ambulances. On March 4 (before the Jenin "incursion"), the head of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society Emergency Medical Service in Jenin was killed by a shell fired from an Israeli tank while he was travelling in a clearly marked ambulance. On March 7, an employee of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) was shot and killed while riding in an UNRWA ambulance near Tulkarm in the West Bank. And on April 8, an UNRWA ambulance was fired on as it tried to reach a wounded man in Jenin. The Government of Israel has asserted that ambulances were used to transport terrorists and their weapons.

In conclusion, the report stresses that a full and comprehensive account of the events in Jenin and other Palestinian cities could not be given without the full co-operation of both parties and a visit to the area. However, referring to the report overall, Kofi Annan expressed confidence that "the picture painted in this report is a fair representation of a complex reality", as well as the belief that the events described show how urgent it is that the parties return to the peace process.

Such statements underline the other major limitation of the report, that, while chronicling the horrendous crimes committed by the Israeli state against the Palestinian people, it does not attempt to differentiate between aggressor and oppressed. Thus, the UN Secretary General can say that in the face of a "complex reality", the urgency is to return to the peace process, without condemning Israel for its occupation or emphasising the right of the Palestinian people to their sovereignty and statehood. Nor does it propose sanctions against Israel for its crimes against humanity, for which there is a wealth of information in eyewitness reports, some of which are cited in the UN report.

Amnesty International on August 1, 2002, released the following statement on the the recent events in Jenin and the Israeli-Occupied Territories of the Palestinian Authority. The statement underscores the need for a thorough, on-the-spot investigative inquiry into the reports of grave human rights abuses that occurred in the context of the Israeli army incursions into Jenin and other cities last April. Such an investigation is all the more important in view of Israel's continuing failure to carry out proper investigations into allegations of human rights violations as required by international law, the statement says.

The report released today, which is a compilation of reports from various sources, sets out the chronology of events in Jenin and other cities. Among the serious human rights concerns highlighted in the report and shared by Amnesty International are the blocking of medical aid for 11 days in Jenin and the destruction of homes in Hawashin.

However, inevitably the report falls short of a comprehensive inquiry. Amnesty International regrets that the Israeli Government has impeded the search for truth and justice. It failed to provide information to the UN Secretary-General for his report and in April rejected the deployment of a fact-finding mission established by the Secretary-General, composed of distinguished international experts, and included military, police and forensic advisers.

Amnesty International is dismayed at the continuing failure of all sides to take all necessary measures to protect civilians. The unlawful killing of Palestinians, collective punishments, including closures and curfews, destruction of homes and threatened expulsions by Israel, and the targeted attacks on Israeli civilians by members of armed Palestinian groups must come to an end.

"For Israelis, Palestinians and the international community, the lesson of Jenin, Gaza, and the ongoing bomb attacks on civilians, is that until the cycle of revenge and reprisal is broken, human rights abuses will only be met with more human rights abuses.

"Amnesty International reiterates its call for international monitors with a strong human rights mandate to be deployed as a matter of urgency. There will be no peace and security until human rights are respected and there is truth, justice and redress for the victims," Amnesty International said, "the fundamental importance of a full investigation to uncover the truth cannot be overestimated. "

Background

Amnesty International delegates gained access to Jenin on 17 April and has carried out a series of fact-finding missions in Jenin, Nablus and other cities. Among the serious concerns identified as requiring thorough and impartial expert investigation are war crimes and crimes against humanity. Amnesty International has raised concerns about the blocking of medical and humanitarian assistance and direct attacks on medical and humanitarian workers, the use of "human shields", unlawful killings, and wanton destruction of homes, arbitrary and administrative detention and torture and ill-treatment, by Israel, as well as targeted attacks on Israeli civilians carried out by armed Palestinian groups.

The following was written by Ali Abunimah for The Electronic Intifada, 1 August 2002

The UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on August 1, 2002, published his report, mandated by the United Nations Security Council, into the Israeli attack on Jenin refugee camp in the Occupied West Bank last April. [http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/index.html]

Israel is crowing that the report exonerates it from charges that there was a "massacre" in the camp. As we shall see, the Palestinian claims against Israel have been deliberately exaggerated and misrepresented in such a way as to diminish and obscure ample evidence that Israel committed serious breaches of international law. The most important thing about the new UN report on Jenin is that it is not an investigation into the events at the camp last April: none of the authors visited Jenin, since the UN Security Council-mandated investigation was blocked by Israel, which refused all co-operation.

The text states:

"The report was written without a visit to Jenin or the other Palestinian cities in question and it therefore relies completely on available resources and information, including submissions from five United Nations Member States and Observer Missions, documents in the public domain and papers submitted by non-governmental organisations."

Israel not only blocked the Jenin investigation, but refused repeated requests by Annan for it to submit written testimony for inclusion in the report. Hence while having done everything possible to block, discredit and undermine an investigation into Jenin, the Israeli government is today citing the same report as vindication. The Israelis cannot have it both ways. If Israel claims that UN reports are not credible when they criticise Israel, it cannot then claim that they suddenly regain legitimacy when they appear to "exonerate" it.

The UN report does repeat the findings of several international aid and human rights agencies that Israel used excessive and disproportionate force in civilian areas, blocked medical treatment for wounded civilians for days, and prevented access to the camp to humanitarian aid and journalists.

Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which unlike the UN team, actually sent investigators to Jenin, reported that these actions by Israel may constitute "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" among other serious breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

Media Distortions: The Myth that Palestinians claimed that 500 were killed in Jenin

"There was no massacre" is the main headline coming from most media organisations reporting about UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's report about the Israeli attack on Jenin refugee camp last April.

In fact, Annan's report does not use the word "massacre" at all. The report does state:

"Fifty-two Palestinian deaths had been confirmed by the hospital in Jenin by the end of May 2002. IDF also place the death toll at approximately 52. A senior Palestinian Authority official alleged in mid-April that some 500 were killed, a figure that has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged."

Palestinian cabinet minister Saeb Erekat was widely cited in press reports as having said that 500 people were killed in Jenin. Yet, despite an extensive search, I have been unable to find any directly quoted statement from any Palestinian official, including Erekat, using that figure for the death toll in Jenin. None of the reports which cited Erekat said where he allegedly made the claim, and some provided conflicting accounts of when he allegedly said it. For a claim that is so widely cited, it should not be so difficult to find a direct quote.

Nevertheless, Israeli officials, commentators and journalists alike repeated constantly that Erekat or sometimes other Palestinian officials had put the Jenin death toll at over 500. So what did Erekat actually say?

On April 10, 2002, Erekat did tell CNN that he believed that up to 500 people had been killed throughout the West Bank, not just in Jenin, since Israel had begun its "Operation Defensive Shield" at the end of March.

In the context of a discussion about the entire Israeli offensive and the announced visit of US Secretary of State Colin Powell to the region, Erekat told CNN Anchor Jim Clancy:

"What we're saying, we see an opportunity in the secretary's visit. We want to help in order to insure the success of the secretary's visit, because insuring the success of implementing [UN resolution] 1402 means stopping the killing fields out there, and you know as the numbers I am receiving today is that the numbers of killed could reach 500 since the Israeli offensive began. Thousands of wounded. You know, the Jenin refuge camp is no longer in existence, and now we've heard of executions there."

Later the same day, CNN News Anchor Bill Hemmer stated on air, apparently in reference to Erekat's earlier appearance:

"Also a heavy war of words today, Saeb Erekat the Chief Palestinian negotiator, live on CNN earlier today said, Palestinians have lost now 500 people between the battles in Jenin and Nablus."

It is clear from a comparison of Hemmer's claim with Erekat's actual statement, that Erekat said nothing of the kind, and yet inaccurate though he is, even Hemmer does not state that Erekat was referring only to Jenin. Amongst others, Xinhua news agency reported accurately that

"Senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Wednesday [April 10] that at least 500 Palestinians had been killed since Israel launched the military offensive in the West Bank on March 29." ("Military operations bolster Palestinian militant spirit: Israeli source," Xinhua, April 12, 2002)

Since Annan's just published report put the actual Palestinian death toll in the period from March 1 to May 7 at 497, and since the Palestinian Red Crescent places most of those deaths squarely in the period of the Israeli invasion, Erekat's estimate, which he had stated at the time was unconfirmed, was far from unreasonable. Most of the comments from Palestinian officials such as Erekat about Israeli actions in Jenin were premised on the notion that urgent UN intervention and investigation was necessary precisely because no one knew exactly what was really going on in the camp.

Yet, on April 11, the day after the CNN interview, The Jerusalem Post reported that

"The actual number of Palestinian casualties in Jenin is unknown. IDF sources estimated it at between 100 and 200. But Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told CNN that Israel had "massacred" 500 people in the Jenin camp." ("Hundreds of gunmen surrender in Jenin," by Arieh O'Sullivan, April 11, 2002)

Erekat did not even use the word "massacre" in this interview, although the Jerusalem Post quoted him as having done so. The false claim about Erekat appears to have originated here. Yet while the Jerusalem Post misreports what Erekat said it does highlight that at the same time that Erekat allegedly claimed 500 were killed, even Israeli sources were putting the death toll at up to 200. There are numerous contemporaneous press reports that Israeli Major General Ron Kitrey had put the death toll in Jenin alone at up to 300, but had later issued a statement saying that figure included dead and wounded.

Thus, the myth of Erekat's claim that 500 were killed in Jenin had begun. It has become so durable that it even made it into the report of the United Nations Secretary General.

Without the claim that Palestinians explicitly accused the Israelis of killing 500, the main accusation from supporters of Israel and the media is that Palestinians alleged a "massacre". There is no scientific or precise definition of a massacre, and no rule that says that hundreds must be killed before an event qualifies as such. "Massacre" is a subjective term and certainly for those who live through it the killing of "only" dozens would qualify. Perhaps it is for this reason that Israeli officials routinely refer to Palestinian attacks which kill 20 or fewer people as "massacres."

In conclusion, the UN report provides no new information to those who are seriously interested in the truth of what happened in Jenin last April. To the Israelis it provides another propaganda coup and plenty of misleading headlines clearing it of any fault, to Kofi Annan and the UN it provides a welcome end to an embarrassing and politically awkward chapter, and to Palestinians it proves yet again that for Israel impunity, not law, is the rule.

It is reported that US aerospace conglomerate Boeing has struck an unprecedented deal with British BAE Systems to co-operate on research and development for the Bush administration's multi-billion dollar ballistic missile defence programme. Industry insiders suggest that the deal, which would promote collaboration between the two firms on command and control technologies, was formally announced on July 24 at the Farnborough International Air Show.

Analysts are pointing to the potential technical gains of collaboration between the two military industries. However, the US military is enthusiastic for the co-operation between the US and British arms monopolies to become a model for the Bush administration's efforts to neutralise the strong global opposition to missile defence from governments. In this, Britain is the keenest partner, as with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter project, a joint Anglo-US project that is also seeking corporate and governmental partners in Germany, Italy, Turkey, Israel and Japan.

By holding out the prospect of lucrative partnerships with giant US military monopolies resulting in large returns, Washington is hopeful that the Boeing-BAE agreement will be the first of many such deals, overcoming especially the opposition of European governments. The US Defence News reports that other US corporations with missile defence contracts are already exploring co-operative agreements with counterparts like the Netherlands-based European Aeronautics Defence and Space Co (EADS), Europe's largest aerospace company. In Japan, Mitsubishi, which has a long history of collaborating with US arms industries, is a major player in US-financed theatre missile defence efforts. And US promises of possible future co-operation with Moscow on missile defence are made in part to help Russian President Vladimir Putin win support for the Bush-Putin nuclear arms accord – which places no formal limits on US missile defence development – by enticing Russian military enterprises, which are in the doldrums, with the prospect of new business.

This strategy fits into US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plans to "globalise" missile defence. Last year Rumsfeld dropped "National" from National Missile Defence, with officials now referring to the programme as "Ballistic Missile Defence", or even a "global missile defence system". A delegation from the Pentagon's Missile Defence Agency will embark on an international tour to NATO and Asian allies later this month to discuss missile defence co-operation. The Pentagon hopes they will agree to grant Washington the right to base radar and interceptors on their territories, as well as provide technical assistance. The Pentagon has already outlined plans to base radar in Turkey to serve as an early warning system for missiles launched from the Middle East, to station interceptors in Central Europe, and to deploy radar on British ships.

The US has spent more than $90 billion on missile defence projects since 1983. But these expenditures pale in comparison to the $200 billion or more the Pentagon will dole out the military industries to build the multi-tiered missile defence system envisioned by Rumsfeld in the "Sons of Star Wars" project. With $7.8 billion being spent in 2002, missile defence is already the most expensive research and development programme in the Pentagon budget. An internal memorandum by Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz suggests that figure could hit $11.1 billion per year by 2007.

Despite these moves to get global acceptance and participation in the updated NMD project, the question remains as to how much actual "sharing" will occur between US and other contractors, and indeed how much of an economic carrot the "partnerships" represent. The major US companies – Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and TRW – have already chalked up long-term contracts for missile defence worth in excess of $20 billion. According to a new study by the World Policy Institute, these "Big Four" contractors split amongst them two-thirds of all missile defence contracts awarded by the Pentagon between 1998 and 2001. And missile defence work has been highly concentrated geographically, with roughly 90% of the contracts since 1998 going to firms in just four states: California, Alabama, Colorado, and Virginia.

Britain is a big mover in the arms industry in its own right. While Tony Blair has been the most active in support of NMD in its previous and its revamped existence, the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Defence Minister Geoff Hoon have seen their international roles as salesmen for the British arms monopolies as much as diplomats for US strategic interests.

For example, India’s pending $1.5 billion deal for the purchase of 66 Hawk-100 advanced jet trainers appears to have finally been cleared for takeoff after being stalled in price negotiations for two years.

A senior Ministry of Defence (MoD) official said in a July 23 interview that the proposal has only to receive the signature of India’s Finance Minister Jaswant Singh, which is reported to be a mere formality as the Finance Ministry last year approved the funding for the deal with BAE Systems. The MoD official said 20 Hawk-100s would be purchased as soon as the deal is finalised.

Pradipto Bandopadhayay, Indian Defence Ministry spokesman, said on July 23 that the Hawk-100 is the only contender for his country’s trainer contract, with offers from Russia, the Czech Republic and Italy rejected earlier. The senior MoD official said the remaining 46 jets will be built in India under a technology transfer agreement. He did not disclose the cost breakdown of the deal.

BAE spokesman Richard Coltart on July 26 declined to comment on the Indian situation beyond saying that talks on a possible deal continue.

In a separate move, the company announced that its Hawk trainer has been selected by the Royal Bahraini Air Force for its advanced jet pilot training requirements. Negotiations are now under way to complete the purchase of around 12 aircraft.