Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, September-October 2002, pages 44-46

United Nations Report

From a Distance, U.N. Issues Report on Israeli Invasion of Jenin, West Bank

By Ian Williams

The newspapers all reported “U.N. Report Shows No Massacre” when it came out, and the Israeli Foreign Ministry crowed vindication. Perhaps they should have actually read the report, which says that the Israeli incursion into Jenin killed 52 Palestinians, at least half of whom were unarmed civilians, and that the whole Israeli operation into the territories so far has killed 497 Palestinians and injured some 1,500.

Would two dozen-plus Israeli civilians being killed by Palestinians in one incident be dismissed so airily as “not a massacre,” one has to wonder (but not for long). In fact, in launching the report, a senior U.N. official said that it “neither confirmed nor denied that a massacre had taken place” in Jenin, since the compilers had not been allowed to go there. It does avoid conclusions as to the legality or otherwise of Israeli actions, although its use of reports from U.N. agencies and humanitarian organizations establishes a strong case for anyone else wanting to charge Israel with such breaches. Human Rights Watch quite correctly condemned the U.N.’s attempts at balance, reporting as it does both the well-substantiated accusations of Israeli breaches of international law and Israeli denials.

However, only Israel would claim the report as vindication of any kind, since it is in fact a damning indictment of Israel’s methods. While the report, in one sentence, does indeed rebut the one allegation of 500 dead, that allegation was not the motivation for the original attempted mission. Indeed, by the time the General Assembly commissioned this report it already was clear that the casualty figures were much lower. What the report does do is specify numerous Israeli breaches of the Geneva Conventions on Occupied Territories, which, the report reasserts, do apply, despite Israel’s denial.

The report was demanded by an Emergency Session of the General Assembly after Israel had refused to admit the team called for by the Security Council and after the U.S. had blocked any attempt to enforce the Council decision. In some ways its preamble, showing how the Israeli government first invited, then prevaricated, and finally pre-empted the report, is the most eloquent testimony of Israeli guilt and obfuscation.

For balance, however, Secretary-General Kofi Annan reiterates in the report his earlier statements to the Security Council that “self-defense was not a blank check, and that responding to terrorism did not in any way free Israel from its obligations under international law, nor did it justify creating a human rights and humanitarian crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Equally, the Palestinian Authority seemed to believe that failing to act against terrorism, and inducing turmoil, chaos and instability, would cause the Government and people of Israel to buckle.”

Annan also asserts that the “Palestinian Authority has the responsibility to protect Israeli civilians from attacks, including suicide bombings, emanating from areas under its security control. Those Palestinian groups that have carried out attacks against civilians have also violated the basic international legal principle of the inviolability of civilian life and property. Acts of terror that take life violate the right to life set forth in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In addition, those groups, and other armed personnel, are prohibited under international humanitarian law from establishing military bases in densely populated civilian areas.”

It is interesting that the secretary-general cites attacks on Israeli “civilians,” and does not mention attacks on military targets. On the other side of the fence, however, the report proceeds to marshal the numbers—497 Palestinians killed in the course of the IDF reoccupation of Palestinian area A from March 1 to May 7, 2002 and, in the immediate aftermath; approximately 1,447 wounded with some 538 live-ammunition injuries (for the same period).

Add to that the round-the-clock curfews imposed on Palestinian cities, refugee camps, towns and villages affecting “an estimated 1 million persons; over 600,000 of them remained under a one-week curfew, while 220,000 urban residents lived under curfew regimes for a longer duration and without vital supplies and access to first aid.”

Regarding property damage, the report notes that “Nablus was especially hard hit, especially in its old city, which contained many buildings of cultural, religious and historic significance,” and estimates $114 million damage. “Much of the destruction appears to have occurred in the fighting as a result of the use by IDF of tanks, helicopter gunships and bulldozers,” the report states.

In Jenin, “Over 2,800 refugee housing units were damaged and 878 homes were demolished or destroyed during the reporting period, leaving more than 17,000 people homeless or in need of shelter rehabilitation.”

Only Israel would claim the Jenin report as vindication of any kind, since it is in fact a damning indictment.

And then there was the deliberate targeting of the Palestinian infrastructure. “United Nations agencies and other international agencies, when allowed into Ramallah and other Palestinian cities, documented extensive physical damage to Palestinian Authority civilian property,” the report observed. “That damage included the destruction of office equipment, such as computers and photocopying machines, that did not appear to be related to military objectives.”

“According to the Palestinian Authority,” it continues, “IDF entry into the Authority offices appeared to be focused on information-gathering. They cite the common removal of computer servers, hard disc drives, computers and paper records as indicative of this goal. The World Bank states that the destruction was focused on office equipment, computers and data storage facilities; it estimates replacement and repair costs for Palestinian Authority office interiors at $8 million. In addition, the Authority asserts that IDF made efforts to disrupt the ministries’ capacity to function effectively, pointing to what they believe was the systematic destruction of office and communication equipment and removal or destruction of records and data from ministries. Records from the Education, Health and Finance Ministries and the Central Bureau of Statistics were removed during the operation and, as of May 7, had not been returned.”

On a more basic level, repeating accusations made by UNWRA Director Peter Hansen about the IDF targeting its schools, the report finds, “Fifty Palestinian schools were damaged by Israeli military action, of which 11 were totally destroyed, 9 were vandalized, 15 used as military outposts and another 15 as mass arrest and detention centers.”

Dealing in particular with Jenin, the report establishes numerous breaches of international law by the Israelis—the very same breaches noted by Israeli government lawyers that led to Sharon’s government refusing to allow the original U.N. team in. “According to Israeli sources,” the report states, “in their incursion into the camp IDF relied primarily on infantry rather than airpower and artillery in an effort to minimize civilian casualties, but other accounts of the battle suggest that as many as 60 tanks may have been used even in the first days. Interviews with witnesses conducted by human rights organizations suggest that tanks, helicopters and ground troops using small arms predominated in the first two days, after which armored bulldozers were used to demolish houses and other structures so as to widen alleys in the camp.”

The report adds that “There were numerous reports of IDF compelling Palestinian civilians to accompany them during house searches, check suspicious subjects, stand in the line of fire from militants and in other ways protect soldiers from danger. Witnesses claim that this was done in the Jenin camp and other Palestinian cities. While IDF soldiers have acknowledged in press reports that they forced Palestinians to knock on doors for house searches, they deny the deliberate use of civilians as human shields.”

“As the fighting began to subside,” the report concludes, “ambulances and medical personnel were prevented by IDF from reaching the wounded within the camp, despite repeated requests to IDF to facilitate access for ambulances and humanitarian delegates, including those of the United Nations. From April 11 to 15, United Nations and other humanitarian agencies petitioned and negotiated for access to the camp with IDF and made many attempts to send in convoys, to no avail. At IDF headquarters on April 12, United Nations officials were told that United Nations humanitarian staff would be given access to the affected population. However, such access did not materialize on the ground, and several more days of negotiations with senior IDF officials and personnel of the Israeli Ministry of Defense did not produce the necessary access despite assurances to the contrary.”

“On 4 April,” it adds, “IDF ordered the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) to stop its operations and sealed off the hospital. Hospital staff contend that shells and gunfire severely damaged equipment on the top floor and that at least two patients died because of damage to the oxygen supplies. None of the Palestinians within the hospital were permitted to leave until April 15.

It appears that, in addition to the denial of aid, the IDF in some instances targeted medical personnel. “Before the Jenin incursion, on 4 March,” the report notes, “the head of the PRCS 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, a staff member of UNRWA was killed when several bullets were fired by Israeli soldiers at an UNRWA ambulance in which he was riding near Tulkarm in the West Bank. On April 3, a uniformed Palestinian nurse was reportedly shot by IDF soldiers within Jenin camp and on April 8 an UNRWA ambulance was fired upon as it tried to reach a wounded man in Jenin.”

Indicative of much American media coverage, The New York Times reported this catalog of war crimes as, “The study concluded that the army blocked aid workers from reaching Palestinians in need and added that it appears that ‘the army also…in some instances targeted medical personnel.’ As the report noted, Israeli officials have repeatedly said that the army kept aid workers and journalists out of the camp for their own protection, and they have denied charges of deliberate fire at ambulances.”

Giving the Israeli denial more space than the original well-substantiated accusations appears to have been only the Times’ interpretation of “all the news that’s fit to print.”

Moroccans Foiled Again!

Yet another attempt to get the Security Council to accept James Baker’s “Framework” proposal for Western Sahara failed at the end of July. The U.S. proposal, cheered on by Morocco and supported in the Council enthusiastically by France and shamefacedly by Britain, would have renewed the MINURSO mandate for another six months and asked Baker to explore the Framework proposal—“taking into account the principle of self-determination.” The Framework proposal would allow five years of autonomy under Moroccan rule, after which a referendum would be held—in which all the Moroccan settlers would be able to vote, ensuring Rabat a majority.

The major opponent to this was Ireland, with its own history of decolonization from Britain. Irish representatives surprised the U.S. and UK by staunchly insisting on amendments to the resolution which asserted that the original “settlement” plan, which provided for a referendum and self-determination, was not just one of the options, but was the basic principle: the only “options,” were methods of implementing it. As a result the final resolution underlines “the validity of the Settlement Plan, while noting the fundamental differences between the parties in implementing the Plan.”

As an Irish diplomat told Akhbar Al Arab, “The original draft was utterly one-sided in its approach: it was in violation of international legal principles, and had already been rejected by one party to the dispute. It was also clear that the movers could not muster more than six or seven votes in the Council, so they could not get a majority for it.”

While Algerian amendments ended up being accepted by the U.S. and UK, the Irish—with strong backing from Mauritius, another non-permanent member of the Council—continued fighting. Explained the Irish diplomat, “We don’t mind if the Western Sahara becomes part of Morocco—as long as that’s what the Sahrawis want.”

The Moroccans were upset at the reference to self-determination. The very same day King Mohamed had said, “We proclaim again our will to protect our territorial integrity…We categorically reject any partitionist option of the Moroccan Sahara.”

The resolution said that the Council would “consider any approach which provides for self-determination that may be proposed by the Secretary-General and the Personal Envoy, consulting, as appropriate, others with relevant experience.” This seems to include the possibility of partition—if the Sahrawis and the Moroccans accepted such a plan.

It also called on the Polisario to free the remaining Moroccan prisoners of war, who have been held in the desert for decades. This displeased the Polisario representative, Ahmed Boukhari, who blamed it on the International Committee of the Red Cross, which he accused of neglecting the fate of Sahrawis who, he says, have “disappeared” in Moroccan prisons. The resolution calls for both sides to cooperate with the ICRC “to resolve the fate” of all those missing. Otherwise, Boukhari claimed the resolution as a success, “since it showed once again that the Security Council was not prepared to accept the Framework solution.”

While Baker clearly is disgruntled that he was not given a free hand to impose a solution—one which, as it happens, is to Rabat’s liking—this time there were no threats of resignation, either direct or indirect, and the main effect is the continuation of MINURSO for another six months. Short of a miracle, most members of the Council fully expect the issue to return in almost the same form then, just as it has for the last 11 years and $500 million spent on the peacekeeping operation.

Ian Williams is a free-lance journalist based at the United Nations.