BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Please tell me I imagined this... or did I miss something?

 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
16:33 / 13.05.02
Okay, after a trawl I can't find the relevant info from the Daily Mail, so bear with me. On Sunday one of the columnists (I think Peter Hitchens) started a section with "So now we know there was no massacre at Jenin... even the Palestinians have admitted as much", and then went on to do the usual slagging of "liberal" media.
Did I miss something?
This was taken AS READ. FOR GRANTED. No explanation. And considering I've been reading all the national dailies every night all week for work, I would have thought I'd have seen something about this.
Anyone care to shed any light?
 
 
Not Here Still
17:24 / 13.05.02
Well, my first reaction to this is that Peter Hitchens is, basically, a wanker and a sorry companion to his brother.

But...

There are a few people who say there was no massacre at Jenin, and not just sources one might expect to hold such an opinion.

The campaigning group Human Rights Watch has completed a report into the Israeli army's operation in the Palestinian town of Jenin.
The report says there was no massacre as the Palestinians have claimed, but it does accuse the Israeli army of committing war crimes.
[BBC]


The battle of Jenin was indisputably fierce and bloody. But while the British papers, almost unanimously, presented it from the outset as a "massacre" or at least as an intentional "war crime" of the worst kind, the US and Israeli papers - Ha'aretz included - were far more reserved and cautious, saying that there was no evidence to back such claims. (A media analysis by the London correspondent of Ha'aretz in the Gruniad.)

However, Peter Hitchens is still a wanker in my opinion...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:22 / 13.05.02
Let's face it, I may have problems with Christopher Hitchens from time to time, but there is NO. DOUBT. WHATSOEVER. that Peter is a wanker. Cheers for the links.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
22:40 / 13.05.02
the US and Israeli papers - Ha'aretz included - were far more reserved and cautious, saying that there was no evidence to back such claims. (A media analysis by the London correspondent of Ha'aretz in the Gruniad.)

Good to see the person from Ha'aretz being so impartial.

It doesn't matter whether you define what happened at Jenin as a 'massacre' or not - it's just semantics. Jenin is just the latest stage in the ongoing Israeli campaign of aggressive occupation of Palestinian territory...
 
 
the Fool
04:29 / 14.05.02
From the BBC article...

"Many Israelis will tell you they could just have bombed Jenin from the air. The fact that infantry troops were risked is evidence of Israel's concern for civilians, it is argued."

You can't bulldozer from the air though, you can't be sure to get EVERYONE, destroy EVERYTHING. You can only do that from the ground.
 
 
alas
02:00 / 22.05.02
After a brief hiatus from the board (please say someone noticed?), I'd just like to chime in that I think Christopher Hitchens is pretty much a wanker as well. Self-centered, self-described "contrarian." Last week in The Nation (US), he accused David Brock of being self-indulgent. And then proceeded to comment, at length, on Brock's unflattering picture of bro Hitchens.
 
 
alas
02:01 / 22.05.02
argh! I meant of himself, not his brother--who hasn't emigrated (so far as I'm aware) to the heady atmosphere of US tabloidom.
 
 
grant
14:10 / 22.05.02
Weird. I just realized I've met Chris Hitchens, but never read anything he's ever written.
 
 
alas
06:20 / 25.05.02
he has a regular column in The Nation--"Minority Report." He's also recently published a book "Letter to a Young Contrarian" part of a Rilke-inspired series (pub by Penguin, I think). He's really such an ass--everything I've written by him INEVITABLY includes a paragraph or more of pure self-congratulation, liberally peppered with dropped names. but, obviously, i somehow have come to relish my general dislike of the man--like picking a scab.
 
 
gridley
02:52 / 07.06.02
The fact that the Israelis refused to let UN aid workers in after they were done makes it pretty clear that they were trying to cover something up, most likely a massacre.
 
 
Baz Auckland
19:26 / 05.08.02
Some days I just love the disinfo newsletter:

"Despite what the news broadcasts say, UN did not say that only 52 died and there was no massacre"

Instead, it was more along the lines of "While the exact number of Palestinians killed is still not final, given the circumstances of the situation on the ground, as of
now reports indicate that 375 Palestinians were killed from 29 March to 7 May 2002."
 
 
w1rebaby
22:23 / 05.08.02
"Many Israelis will tell you they could just have bombed Jenin from the air. The fact that infantry troops were risked is evidence of Israel's concern for civilians, it is argued."

Sure, they didn't use bombers, except that I understand they shelled the fuck out of the place for days, then moved troops in, there were casualties, and they then pulled them out and shelled the fuck out of it again for a bit.
 
 
Fist of Fun
07:19 / 06.08.02
Some days I just love the disinfo newsletter:

"Despite what the news broadcasts say, UN did not say that only 52 died and there was no massacre"

Instead, it was more along the lines of "While the exact number of Palestinians killed is still not final, given the circumstances of the situation on the ground, as of
now reports indicate that 375 Palestinians were killed from 29 March to 7 May 2002."


Sorry, but that's not what it says at all. The quote you used is from the submissions of the Palestinian Authority, contained in Annex II to the UN report, not the UN report itself. Furthermore, it was concerned with the occupation of the West Bank, rather than Jenin.

The only thing the UN concluded is that at least 52 Palestinians (and 23 Israelis) died in Jenin, although that is only the confirmed dead. Whilst the media have hit upon this report as important, having read it it's a complete wash-out. The UN was denied access to Jenin, its investigative team was vetoed by Israel, and as a result its report was entirely based upon second hand information. Its conclusions are minimal, extremely limited and hedged with caveats about evidence and the breadth of their possible application.

It does (at least in my opinion) tend to indicate that the initial claims of the PA were inaccurate. It also expressly criticises both sides for their placing of civilians in danger. But it goes no further - it certainly does not say that Israel acted acceptably or, for that matter, unnacceptably. Is this surprising? Of course not - the UN has to be seen to be perfectly impartial and has to be able to talk to both sides for the future...

Interestingly and completely missed by all the media I have seen, it also adds that the European Union report (annex IV to the UN report) concluded:
"Palestinians had claimed that between 400 and 500 people had been killed, fighters and civilians together. They had also claimed a number of summary executions and the transfer of corpses to an unknown place outside the city of Jenin.

The number of Palestinian fatalities, on the basis of bodies recovered to date, in Jenin and the refugee camp in this military operation can be estimated at around 55. Of those, a number were civilians, four were women and two children. There were 23 Israeli fatalities in the fighting operations in Jenin.

The number of Palestinian fatalities could increase when the rubble is removed. Most observers share the certainty that there must be some bodies lying under the debris.

Nevertheless, the most recent estimates by UNRWA and ICRC show that the number of missing people is constantly declining as the IDF releases Palestinians from detention. In any case, a figure is very difficult to estimate.
"

This looks to me to be the most balanced conclusion in the whole affair.

For the actual report, see:
http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/index.html
 
 
Baz Auckland
10:22 / 07.08.02
Oops. Sorry. I really should have followed the link and actually read the report. I don't understand why they issued the report if they weren't even allowed into the camp to investigate?
 
  
Add Your Reply