Posted on 04/20/2002 4:44:02 AM PDT by Jurist
This is a transcript of AM broadcast at 0800 AEST on local radio.
Jenin massacre uncovering
AM - Friday, April 19, 2002 8:08
LINDA MOTTRAM: To the Middle East and as more information comes out of the cities of Jenin and Nablus on the West Bank, it's becoming clear that Israel will have to answer allegations that it's committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during its occupation of the West Bank.
One British forensic expert says the evidence points to a massacre by Israeli forces. That expert is Professor Derrick Pounder from Amnesty International who's inspected the devastation and examined some of the now rotting bodies that are still being pulled from the rubble in Jenin.
He says the truth will come out, just as it did in Bosnia and in Kosovo before and the UN envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen, who has also inspected the Jenin refugee camp says the sight is horrific beyond belief and that Israel's failure to allow in rescue teams was morally repugnant.
The ABC's foreign affairs editor Peter Cave reports from Jerusalem.
PETER CAVE: As he picked his way through a pile of rubble the size of several football fields which was once a crowded ghetto of houses in the refugee camp, Terje Roed-Larsen was clearly taken aback by the scale of the devastation, the bodies and the knowledge that many who died underneath were buried alive for days.
TERJE ROED-LARSEN: I think I can speak for all in the UN delegation here that we are shocked, this is horrifying beyond belief. Just seeing this area looks like as if there's been an earthquake here and the stench of death telling its own story around here.
PETER CAVE: Mr Roed-Larsen has called for a full withdrawal of Israeli forces and a lifting of a curfew in the area, not only to allow the retrieval of the dead but also to provide urgent help for those still alive.
DERRICK POUNDER: The stench of decaying corpses are all over the place. I saw personally an about 12-year-old boy being dug out, his body totally destroyed. I saw two brothers digging out of the rubble their father and their brothers.
There are people all over the place digging with their hands, looking for their relatives and dear ones. It's a horrible scene.
The devastation is nearly total at the heart of the refugee camp and we assess that about 2,000 people are now without roof over their heads. There's lack of food, there's lack of water, the electricity grids are destroyed, the water is cut.
It's a catastrophic situation particularly in the refugee camp but also in the whole town of Jenin.
PETER CAVE: Despite growing international outrage over the apparent massacre, the Israeli Government remains unrepentant. Foreign Ministry spokesman Gideon Meir.
GIDEON MEIR: Jenin is a symbol of Palestinian brutalitism. Jenin is a capital of suicide bombers. Jenin, there was a huge infrastructure of terror. We went there to fight the terrorist cells to eliminate terror. There was heavy fighting there and great fighting there. We lost 23 of our boys. Jenin is not a recreation area, Jenin is not a resort.
LINDA MOTTRAM: Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman Gideon Meir, that report from Peter Cave in Jerusalem.
Actually yours is the first response that merited an answer. This is a conflict about 2,000 years in the making and stopping will not happen over night.
Look at the history of the region. During the Crusades (and they are still prominent in the Islamic mindset) the Arabs (known as Saracen and Turkomen) lost many of the engagements in the 300 years the European Knights occupied that area. But they were on their home turf and had long memories. They had no place else to go and kept fighting (and got better at it), while the West eventually lost interest and lost key battles.
In Biblical times Palestine encompassed both Jew and (pre-Islamic) Arab. How then to reconcile in the modern context the establishment of a homeland that is Home exclusively to one and not the other?
Number one you must face the fact that you must either a) wipe out the Palestinians utterly, or b) learn to live with them.
The rest of the posters of this thread would tend to agree with option a), but before that happened, I am certain the rest of the non-Jewish population of the USA would see that it is morally repulsive to support a country engaging in genocide and yank US support from Israel: cash, military material and intelligence, leaving Israel alone to face a whole lot of pissed off Arabs who, with Clinton and the Chinese PRC's help, may soon have nuclear, biological or chemical tips for their Scuds. And judging by the events in 1990 - 1991, I'd say Israel is in Scud range.
That is the very direction Sharon is taking Israel now. Your man is dead-set for war and I want no part of someone else's war. (Conversely, I volunteered for every chance to go into harm's way while I was active -- but that was for the US of A).
The Palestinians have hinted at what is needed to get Israel peace: they want their land back. Or, to be practical, a substantial chunk of their land back. As long as it is denied them, they will have nothing better to do than to attack. By keeping them in extremis you guarantee continual warfare.
Sharon is thinking in revanchist terms, much like the French did in 1918, and wanted to humiliate and 'bleed Germany white.' What that bred was a population thisting for revenge. A population willing to listen to the rantings of the extreme Socialist factions (Communist and National Socialist) rather than just getting on with their daily lives.
Jenin, even if it turns out to be a myth, has now taken on the rallying cry akin to 'Remember the Alamo!' 'Remember the Maine!', 'Lusitania,' or 'Pearl Harbor.' We can only hope that the damage done is not irreparable.
Second, you must have justice. If you close ranks behind murderers in your midst, you aide and abet their crimes against humanity. You must allow the truth to be revealed, and, should guilt be established, you must punish the guilty. If indeed an atrocity has been committed, we have already established precedent by trying Nazis in Nuremburg, Vopos (East German border guards who shot to kill) after the Wall came down, now and Rwandan and Yugoslav killers are on trial. Sharon might well be a candidate for going on the dock.
Yes, I know your response already: 'but these are murderous terrorists!' Yes, and prior to 1948 Palestine was under British mandate and that mandate was to bring the country up to self-governance speed -- not to pass it off to a third party who had been absent for some 2,000 years. From the Palestinian / Arab perspective, the Jews are interlopters who used terror tactics until they actually acquired sufficient arms and equipment to become an actual army. Then in 1948 they declared Statehood. Mere force of arms is the only thing that has kept Israel from being wiped out, and lest Israel forget, most of those arms and the cash to pay for them, comes from the USA. Indeed, Israel had a close call in 1973. Had it not been the sudden infusion of 10 percent of our entire frontline armored strength summarily handed over to the Israeli's, you would be part of Palestine or Lebanon right now.
Third, assuming you decide that you will have to live with them after all, either by absorbing them into the Israeli population (impractical), or by partitioning what is Israel now, and what had been Palestine in 1948 and moving towards total segregation.
They need full statehood, not ghettoization, not being moved onto a reservation or a Bantustan. The Palestine that you set up must be viable, e.g. capable of being self sustaining. Then you close the door between you and them.
If Israel can present the face of reasonableness -- in American terms -- to Americans, I can almost guarantee our undying support. This means allowing Palestine (or at least a part of Palestine) be Palestine. That takes a lot of heat out from under the pressure cooker. If people can lead a normal life, they a far less prone to picking up a rifle and risking their lives (because life is good). If life is miserable, they have nothing else to lose.
There are any number of examples of successfully-waged low intensity conflicts (guerilla wars) in the latter half of this century. The Philippines, Greece and Malaya are good examples. All of them included both political and military components. All of them recognized that the political aspect was the far more important of the two.
Thanks for being the first to ask a logical question.
That is all for now.
Jurist
Here's a first-hand account of the battle from a terrorist that was there, published by the Egyptian press. It doesn't seem to follow the script promulgated by all of the left-wing hand wringers.
I'm curious, what's your definition of genocide?
If we strip away liberal relativism, jurist is no less a criminal against humanity than the father who trains his child to be a homicide bomber. Both are cowards for not fighting themselves, and both use instruments (a child, lies) in attempts destroy innocent life.
Jurist is as evil as any of the other evil ones.
Those are the dumbest words I have ever read on FreeRepublic.
Now, you're trying to sound reasonable. But your posting of dozens of false articles bearing the Pals' lies of "genocide" on this thread shows your true beliefs and agenda.
Two days after her column came out, a bomb exploded in Northern Ireland. I about died laughing. She's such an idiot. Really, I'm surprised her career didn't end when she wrote "Shrub: The short political live of George. W. Bush." I hope he's a two-termer, just to rub it in.
That is simply not a true statement. Not even close.
The Barak Plan would have been an excellent start for them. 97 % of the West Bank with possibilities for more.It was rejected and the suicide bombings started
They want the whole enchilida. Every statement, action, attack confirm this.
Under these conditions, whats to be done? Nothing less than what the ISraelis are doing, IMO
ROFLMAO!
Going to his profile, I find an email address, and also a link to a personal webpage. This page, with a little poking around, reveals (surprise) a lawyer of seemingly good repute. But it also reveals a DIFFERENT email address.
My question to "Jurist" is: are you this lawyer, or are you an identity thief? We have had that kind of thing before, for example good ol' skunk who tried to nick the identity of a british sports editor as one of his umpteen aliases.
You wouldn't mind me writing to the email address on the lawyer's page to check this, would you "Jurist"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.