I'm glad somebody said it.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
I feel given the U.N. s comments on Jenin prior to any investigation and the difficulties that would arise for the U.N. should it be seen that they were at the very least indifferent to a refugee camp being used a terrorist base

I've been thinking a bit more about this, and was listening to some rabid Israeli's and Palestinians each mouthing off their tired old "we do nothing wrong, they are the bad guys" monologues.

Why has the UN not sent investigative teams into Jenin about its probable terrorist-camp situation? Well, for a start, there was very little to investigate. A suicide bomber blows up some innocents - there is no question about it being a massacre. I would never doubt that it was. There is no need to see if the terrorist bombing was a violation of human rghts.

Perhaps the UN could have looked to form an investigation to see if the terrorism was state-sponsored, but I'm not sure that this would even be within their remit.

Jenin, however, is a different case. We have allegations of a massacre having taken place. The removal of the press, and the effective sealing of the area from investigation makes it possible that there is something being hidden.

Here, there is no question about the "state-sanctioned" part, but there is a question about whether or not it was a massacre.

I see this as a very different question. Determining if it was a massacre is within the UN remit. Determining who was behind a known massacre would not be...unless possibly they had been given permission to police/peace-keep the area - which they have not.

First stage will be implying there was no milatary objective in Jenin, no reason to go through the houses, etc etc.

Which flies totally in the face of the UN not having military advisers on the team. Come on - if they had no military experts, and yet concluded there was no military objective....how credible do you think that would be?

For a start, I dont think the media would swallow it. The media are influential, but they love taking pot-shots at whoever is the biggest, easiest, target. Earlier in the conflict, it was the Palestinians. Now, focus has shifted to the Israeli's because they may have lost the moral highground. If the UN get involved, and make any bad slipups, dont you think the media are just waiting to pounce on them. Be a great time to link back to the Dutch army incident from their last great cause.

They let in a team to judge them when they dont have faith in their impartiality,

The team dont judge. They determine if there is a case to be answered. This would then go to trial. For the UN to be lacking impartiality would require that this court be stacked with anti-Israeli sentiment as well as the team (which you pointed out has at least one strongly Israeli-critical member).

One of the reported conditions the Israelis were asking for (heard on CNN, never saw it anywhere else) was that they wanted a guarnatee that soldiers would not be prosecuted.

Now - in all honesty - this is saying that not only is the team biased, and is setting out to shaft Israel, but that he courts afterwards will be equally biased, setting out to shaft Israel, and that no-one will actually notice this.

Is it not equally/more likely that Israel know that at least some of the claims levelled against them are true, and they wish to avoid getting nailed for them?

Israel (All Round Bad Guys) vs U.N. (All Round Good Guys).
<snip>
I agree they *should* make a big deal about impartiality- but I dont think people would listen given the above popular opinions.

Up until recently, media and popular opinion was for more pro-Israeli than at present. One must ask why this has changed. Why are Israel all of a sudden the ARBGs?

As I said earlier - the media is fickle - they will pick on the easiest target. For Israel to make specific charges of bias in the team would, at the very least, be far more credible than their current stance of stalling while insisting they have nothing to hide.

jc

Bateman

>>>>>>The UN Human Rights Commission has failed to make the Palestinain Authority answerable for this abuse. Under the very eyes of the UN, Jenin became a terrorist military base, and jeopardised its status as a refugee camp

---

Well, up until recently it was a refugee camp. I can't see how the fact that there is a virtual human suicide bomber factory functioning there takes away from its status as a refugee camp. I don't know what legal tools the UNHRC has to "make the PA responsible for this". Providing aid and education for people is one thing, investigating terrorism is another. If you argue that the UNHRC has failed to be impartial in this case, it is not the fault of the people on the ground in Jenin, you cannot automatically assume that they failed to inform their superiors. Provision of aid cannot be linked to investigation of terrorism, they are two different things and should be treated as such.

And at the end of the day, Israel refusing to let the team in, and Annan disbanding it means that the UN should cease pretending it has any real power when clearly it hasn't. Resolutions have been wantonly violated by Israel, and this is just the latest chapter in what, apart from Israel's seemingly (to me at least) having something to hide, is increasingly a story of the UN losing face bigtime.


>>>(including those European states who allowed Europe's own Jewish civilisation to be liquidated)

Not exactly the most impartial (or relevant) of comments.

>>invoke human rights in their zeal to destroy Israel.

This man sounds like that in his view, the Saudi peace plan is part of this zeal. Why doesn't he name these "fascist regimes" (don't say he doesn't have to)?

Sand

Which flies totally in the face of the UN not having military advisers on the team. Come on - if they had no military experts, and yet concluded there was no military objective....how credible do you think that would be?

I wouldnt consider it credible at all. None of the U.N. figures were investigators/milatary experts and that didnt stop their comments re a massacre taking place being taken seriously. Mind you the article was arguing that the U.N. has already decided the verdict and was merely sending in a team for show.

The team dont judge. They determine if there is a case to be answered. This would then go to trial. For the UN to be lacking impartiality would require that this court be stacked with anti-Israeli sentiment as well as the team

I agree to a point. If the team(ARGGs) finds that theres a case to answer- i.e. a massacre occured then I dont think the Israelis (ARBGs) will get much in the way sympathy to any defence they try to make. This is even before consideration of whether the U.N.s power structure can bring influence to bear on the court so that it gets the "right" decision - one in keeping with the U.N.s obvious views. Its not a great example given the particular case but does anyone seriously think the trial of Milosevic is anything other than a show trial and a waste of money- Even given the non-existent chance he is innocent he wont be found innocent - The political fallout would be massive, the court would have been seen to have "failed" by not convicting. If the Israelis end up in a war crimes court (A biased investigating team will send them there) they have a snowballs chance in hell of being found innocent regardless of the facts. Hobbes comment sums up the view of many perfectly.

To me, Jenin was a massacre. Regardless if it happended or not.

Is it not equally/more likely that Israel know that at least some of the claims levelled against them are true, and they wish to avoid getting nailed for them?

Certainly the Israelis have a lot of question marks hanging over them - The massacre in the Lebanon refugee camps and the actions of their allies there in general and their general "who gives a ****" attitude regarding the Palestinian civillians - all of this would merely make their trial (if it came to pass for Jenin) all the more biased as peope would hold the view "If they didnt do a massacre in Jenin they sure as hell did it elsewhere".

Up until recently, media and popular opinion was for more pro-Israeli than at present.

I wouldnt agree - I found the opinion pieces on this thread so different because they didnt take the anti- Israeli position as their starting point of interpretation. But thats just my opinion - I certain there are many who have diverging or completly opposed views.