whatawaytodie (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} whatawaytodie) wrote,@ 2002-05-09 11:37:00 |
|
Member of the U.N. Jenin team speaks out
William Nash was one of the military specialists assigned by the U.N. to assess the damage in Jenin. In today's Internation Herald Tribune, he writes about the formation and make-up of the fact-finding team, as well as why the mission would have helped the Israelis as well as the Palestinians.
Finding the facts on Jenin could help both sides
William L. Nash - International Herald Tribune
Thursday, May 9, 2002
GENEVA The first call came during a Saturday morning drive in the Virginia countryside. It was the chief of staff to the secretary-general of the United Nations. Would I serve as the senior military member of a fact-finding team reviewing the events in Jenin?
By Wednesday, I was on my way to Geneva with a ticket to fly to Tel Aviv on Thursday. It felt like the army again. And like the army, it was "hurry up and wait."
The first day or two in Geneva were useful. Within days my military team added British and French officers with experience in Northern Ireland, the Balkans and Africa. The Irish police team had counterterrorist and investigative experts who had worked in Cambodia, Namibia and Yugoslavia. Our Finnish forensic pathologist was renowned for her work in Bosnia and Kosovo. This was a collection of seasoned veterans who had seen war as well as ethnic and civil conflicts throughout the world.
We began an extensive review of published accounts to develop a thorough understanding of the larger war as it applied to Jenin. We also received briefings from representatives of the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations who had been on the ground in Jenin before, during and after the fighting. We developed a comprehensive plan for collecting information in the field that was designed to avoid the possibility of preconceived conclusions.
However, by the end of the first week, the stall by Israel was in the process of turning from clarification to obstruction to blockage. Our mood shifted from bemusement to frustration to anger. There was so much misinformation about our intentions, about who we were and whether our backgrounds predisposed us to misunderstand military necessities or the tragic circumstances of urban war.
From time to time we were consulted on how to deal with the Israeli concerns about procedures and the substance of our mission. The replies given by our team leader, former President Martti Ahtisaari of Finland, were always balanced and intended to resolve the confrontation. But it soon became clear that the Israeli arguments were fundamentally hostile to the very concept of finding out what happened in Jenin. The Israeli process seemed designed to stop our mission.
The UN Security Council could not or would not help the secretary-general fulfill its resolution on finding the facts of Jenin. The role of the U.S. government in not supporting the resolution it sponsored was a disappointment to me.
What is most interesting is that when the ongoing public debate in Israel is added to reports from the international media and nongovernmental organizations, a fairly consistent picture begins to emerge. It appears that the leadership of the Israeli Defense Forces is concerned that the conduct of the battle of Jenin is being questioned on both professional and legal grounds. This seems to make sense for two reasons.
First, there are many indications that the units sent into battle were hastily assembled and given little time to plan, prepare and rehearse for their attack. Their intelligence about the Jenin refugee camp was insufficient to support the deliberate, measured attack that the circumstances required. Inadequate measures were established to handle the 13,000 persons living in the camp, some armed and dangerous; some unarmed, but sympathetic to and supportive of the fighters; and some true noncombatants. The IDF seems also to have underestimated the intensity of the resistance that they would face.
Second, I believe from the multiple sources I have read and listened to in the last two weeks that there is reasonable cause to pursue a thorough examination of the facts concerning a number of alleged violations of the laws of war, as provided in the Hague Convention of 1907, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1977 Protocols to those Geneva Conventions. (MORE)
***
On a different topic, with the death of Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands and the rise of Le Pen in France, lots of ink has been used commenting, hand-wringing on the rise of the far-right in Europe.
WHAT ABOUT IN THE U.S.? Geez...
George Bush. Dick Cheney. Karl Rove. Ted Olson. John Ashcroft. Donald Rumsfeld. Alberto Gonzales. Karen Hughes. Dick Armey. Tom Delay. Jesse Helms. Trent Lott. Otto Reich. Gale Norton. John Walters. Andrew Card. Denny Hastert. And on and on...
From the Bush administration throughout Congress, the federal government is littered with far-right Republicans. Where's the concern about the U.S. falling into the hands of fundamentalist, xenophobic creeps here in the States?
William Nash was one of the military specialists assigned by the U.N. to assess the damage in Jenin. In today's Internation Herald Tribune, he writes about the formation and make-up of the fact-finding team, as well as why the mission would have helped the Israelis as well as the Palestinians.
Finding the facts on Jenin could help both sides
William L. Nash - International Herald Tribune
Thursday, May 9, 2002
GENEVA The first call came during a Saturday morning drive in the Virginia countryside. It was the chief of staff to the secretary-general of the United Nations. Would I serve as the senior military member of a fact-finding team reviewing the events in Jenin?
By Wednesday, I was on my way to Geneva with a ticket to fly to Tel Aviv on Thursday. It felt like the army again. And like the army, it was "hurry up and wait."
The first day or two in Geneva were useful. Within days my military team added British and French officers with experience in Northern Ireland, the Balkans and Africa. The Irish police team had counterterrorist and investigative experts who had worked in Cambodia, Namibia and Yugoslavia. Our Finnish forensic pathologist was renowned for her work in Bosnia and Kosovo. This was a collection of seasoned veterans who had seen war as well as ethnic and civil conflicts throughout the world.
We began an extensive review of published accounts to develop a thorough understanding of the larger war as it applied to Jenin. We also received briefings from representatives of the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations who had been on the ground in Jenin before, during and after the fighting. We developed a comprehensive plan for collecting information in the field that was designed to avoid the possibility of preconceived conclusions.
However, by the end of the first week, the stall by Israel was in the process of turning from clarification to obstruction to blockage. Our mood shifted from bemusement to frustration to anger. There was so much misinformation about our intentions, about who we were and whether our backgrounds predisposed us to misunderstand military necessities or the tragic circumstances of urban war.
From time to time we were consulted on how to deal with the Israeli concerns about procedures and the substance of our mission. The replies given by our team leader, former President Martti Ahtisaari of Finland, were always balanced and intended to resolve the confrontation. But it soon became clear that the Israeli arguments were fundamentally hostile to the very concept of finding out what happened in Jenin. The Israeli process seemed designed to stop our mission.
The UN Security Council could not or would not help the secretary-general fulfill its resolution on finding the facts of Jenin. The role of the U.S. government in not supporting the resolution it sponsored was a disappointment to me.
What is most interesting is that when the ongoing public debate in Israel is added to reports from the international media and nongovernmental organizations, a fairly consistent picture begins to emerge. It appears that the leadership of the Israeli Defense Forces is concerned that the conduct of the battle of Jenin is being questioned on both professional and legal grounds. This seems to make sense for two reasons.
First, there are many indications that the units sent into battle were hastily assembled and given little time to plan, prepare and rehearse for their attack. Their intelligence about the Jenin refugee camp was insufficient to support the deliberate, measured attack that the circumstances required. Inadequate measures were established to handle the 13,000 persons living in the camp, some armed and dangerous; some unarmed, but sympathetic to and supportive of the fighters; and some true noncombatants. The IDF seems also to have underestimated the intensity of the resistance that they would face.
Second, I believe from the multiple sources I have read and listened to in the last two weeks that there is reasonable cause to pursue a thorough examination of the facts concerning a number of alleged violations of the laws of war, as provided in the Hague Convention of 1907, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1977 Protocols to those Geneva Conventions. (MORE)
***
On a different topic, with the death of Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands and the rise of Le Pen in France, lots of ink has been used commenting, hand-wringing on the rise of the far-right in Europe.
WHAT ABOUT IN THE U.S.? Geez...
George Bush. Dick Cheney. Karl Rove. Ted Olson. John Ashcroft. Donald Rumsfeld. Alberto Gonzales. Karen Hughes. Dick Armey. Tom Delay. Jesse Helms. Trent Lott. Otto Reich. Gale Norton. John Walters. Andrew Card. Denny Hastert. And on and on...
From the Bush administration throughout Congress, the federal government is littered with far-right Republicans. Where's the concern about the U.S. falling into the hands of fundamentalist, xenophobic creeps here in the States?
