[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 52 (Wednesday, May 1, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3619-S3620]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE JENIN INVESTIGATION

  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, for the past few weeks we have been 
hearing sensationalist claims of a massacre in the Jenin refugee camp. 
In recent days, hundreds of reporters and international relief workers 
have descended on the camp, and not one has verified these claims.
  In fact, the Washington Times today quotes the senior official in 
Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement in Jenin as saying that the death toll 
stands at fifty six. Other reports place the number around fifty one.
  Even one death is one too many, and there is still considerable 
excavation work to do in the camp. But it seems apparent that there was 
no massacre in Jenin.
  Let me say that again. It seems apparent that there was no massacre 
in Jenin.
  There are not 500 civilian dead, as the Palestinians initially 
claimed. What happened in Jenin was an intense battle fought at close 
quarters in which 23 Israeli soldiers also lost their lives in Jenin. 
And the leader of Fatah said today, trying to make the case that they 
``won'' the battle, that ``although we lost 56, they lost 23.''
  The relatively high number of Israeli casualties is in itself an 
indicator of what went on in the camp. Had the Israelis chosen, they 
could have easily sat back and pummeled the camp from afar, and starved 
the terrorists. Instead, they chose to do things the hard way. They 
went house to house to house, from booby-trapped house to booby-trapped 
house to booby-trapped house. In doing so to avoid civilian casualties, 
they inflicted casualties upon themselves. That is why they went house 
to house--not to inflict civilian casualties.
  Were there civilian casualties? Almost certainly there were. But 
there is a world of difference between the deliberate targeting of 
civilians and the unintentional and inevitable casualties that were 
bound to occur in a place such as Jenin where terrorists deliberately 
hid themselves among civilians.
  Remember we got a dose of that ourselves during the gulf war. As you 
recall, Saddam Hussein hid himself and others in the midst of civilian 
populations in civilian centers. That is the picture I believe will 
emerge as the facts are examined in the cold light of day--that there 
was no massacre, and that, although there were civilians killed, the 
number was relatively small, more in line with the number of Israelis 
killed--that is, proportionately. And I think the world should 
understand that.
  There has been considerable discussion in recent days about a United 
Nations' factfinding panel assembled by Secretary General Kofi Annan. 
As of a couple of hours ago, the U.N. officially decided not to send 
the factfinding mission. But the impression we have heard in the world 
is that the reason the factfinding mission was not sent is because of 
Israeli intransigence.
  U.N. leadership, I believe under Kofi Annan, had the best intentions. 
But Israel has voiced what I believe to be legitimate concerns about 
the composition, the procedures, and terms of reference this team was 
supposed to operate under. Reports indicate that the team is now 
disbanding.
  Unfortunately, in my view, the United Nations should have met the 
legitimate concerns and proceeded with the mission. It is hard to blame 
Israel for having doubts about the objectivity of a factfinding team.
  Israel has also voiced concerns over the lack of adequate 
representation on

[[Page S3620]]

the U.N. team of counterterrorism and military experts. It argues, in 
my view, with justification that the events in Jenin must be seen in 
their proper context.
  Israel did not invade Jenin on a whim; it did so to destroy the 
terrorist infrastructure, and only after the Palestinian Authority--
this is an important point--only after the Palestinian Authority, whom 
the Israelis and the rest of the world equipped with weapons to keep 
peace and order--only after the Palestinian Authority refused to carry 
out its obligations to destroy this terrorist infrastructure.
  According to the Israeli Government, 23 suicide bombers came from 
Jenin. These 23 were responsible for the deaths of 57 Israelis, and the 
injury of 1,000 more.
  Is it fair--and I think it is fair--to ask the U.N. what its 
officials were saying to the Palestinian Authority about the use of a 
U.N.-run camp as a launching pad for terrorism? To many Israelis, it 
appears as if the U.N. turned a blind eye to Palestinian terrorism, 
while it seems intent on smearing Israel for its legitimate response to 
that terror.
  I would suggest a fairer thing to do would be for the U.N. to hold an 
internal review and ask internally what the U.N. team in Jenin, 
responsible for Jenin, knew or did not know about the role the 
Palestinian Authority was playing. What did they know? I am not saying 
they were complicitous. What did they know?
  With such a breakdown, wouldn't we be looking if it occurred here? If 
there was a group in charge of overseeing a particular dilemma within 
the United States, and something terrible happened, wouldn't we ask 
ourselves, What did we know about what was going on?
  Nonetheless, not withstanding this, the Israelis have not rejected 
the U.N. team. Foreign Minister Peres of Israel, in a letter to 
Secretary of State Powell, has said the team should ``examine the 
Palestinian terrorist infrastructure and activity in the camp and 
emanating from it which necessitated Israel's military actions. In 
doing so, the team will bear in mind the relevant elements of 
international law, including the right of self-defense and the 
obligation to prevent terrorism.''
  He goes on to say:

       [I]n accordance with the fact-finding nature of the team, 
     its work should be submitted as facts only, and not 
     observations. This is a vital concern for Israel in order to 
     avoid abuse and misuse of the work of the Team for political 
     purposes.

  Peres then goes on to add:

       Israel understands that requests for interviews with public 
     servants, past or present, or documents, will be made through 
     the government of Israel. While Israel will carefully 
     consider these requests, Israel will have the right to make 
     final determinations regarding availability to the Team. This 
     sovereign discretion is mandated by Israeli law.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the 
letter to Secretary of State Powell be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                            Deputy Prime Minister,


                              and Minister of Foreign Affairs,

                                         Jerusalem, 29 April 2002.
     Mr. Colin Powell,
     Secretary of State, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: Enclosed are points I raised in a phone 
     conversation with Secretary General Anman on 28 April 2002.
       It will be incumbent upon the Team, in considering ``recent 
     events in the Jenin refugee camp'' to examine the Palestinian 
     terrorist infrastructure and activity in the camp and 
     emanating from it which necessitated Israel's military 
     actions. In so doing, the Team will bear in mind also the 
     relevant elements of international law, including the right 
     of self-defense and the obligation to prevent terrorism.
       In accordance with the fact-finding nature of the Team, its 
     work should be submitted as findings of facts only, and not 
     observations. This is a vital concern for Israel in order to 
     avoid abuse and misuse of the work of the Team for political 
     purposes.
       Israel understands that requests for interviews with public 
     servants, past or present, or documents, will be made through 
     the Government of Israel. While Israel will carefully 
     consider these requests, Israel will have the right to make 
     final determinations regarding availability to the Team. This 
     sovereign discretion is mandated by Israeli law. Equally, in 
     the spirit of fairness, and with a view to assuring that 
     accurate factual information is provided, Israel should have 
     the opportunity, during the fact-finding work of the Team, to 
     comment on any statements received by the Team from any other 
     Israeli individuals or organizations.
       I emphasized the sensitive nature of Israel's present 
     situation, both here in the area and in international fora. 
     Faced with a relentless battle against terrorism, on the one 
     hand, and wishing to cooperate with the International 
     community, on the other, we are obliged to ensure that our 
     very basic interests, and those of our military and security 
     servicemen, are fully protected.
           Sincerely yours,

                                                 Shimon Peres.

  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, what is so unreasonable about these 
requests? Would any other democratic country behave any differently? 
Indeed, would any Arab country ever be subjected to a similar 
factfinding investigation in the first place? Perhaps the false cries 
of massacre coming from Arab circles are a reflection of what they may 
have come to expect from their own governments.
  Was there ever a U.N. factfinding team that investigated the Syrian 
massacre of as many as 20,000 civilians in the city of Hama in 1982? 
Was the international press corps ever able to conduct their own 
investigations there as they are now in Jenin?
  Was there ever a U.N. investigation of the genocidal Anfal campaign 
launched by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds in the late 1980s?
  Of course not. There is a double standard when it comes to Israel. 
And many of those criticizing Israel today know that Israel holds 
itself to a higher standard than the countries I mentioned.
  And Israel is saying the U.N. team is welcome as long as it has a 
fair mandate and agreed-upon terms of reference. If there is to be true 
factfinding, and not a witch hunt, then what is so unreasonable about 
Israel's requests?
  My purpose is not to apologize for Israel. As some of you know--both 
in the caucus, out of the caucus, here on the floor, and in other 
fora--I have been very critical of some of Israel's actions.
  Indeed, many Israelis have raised questions about the military 
operation in Jenin, including allegations of disproportionate use of 
force and the denial of medical and humanitarian access.
  In fact, the leading Israeli newspaper editorialized yesterday that 
the army should conduct an internal investigation about possible 
gratuitous vandalism and destruction of property.
  Did Israel do everything right in Jenin? In all probability, no. Did 
they engage in a wholesale massacre of innocent civilians? No.
  How many Arab countries have the capacity for such self-examination? 
How many Arab countries have a supreme court that would do as the 
Israeli Supreme Court did to intervene to prevent the Israeli Army from 
removing bodies in Jenin?
  We are not talking about some dictatorship or puppet regime. The 
Israeli Supreme Court--not an international organization--the Israeli 
Supreme Court intervened and said: Whoa, don't remove those bodies, 
army. We want to know what the facts are.
  So to give this presumption that Israel intentionally massacred, and 
then attempted to cover up, I think is incredibly unfair and will be 
proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be wrong.
  I believe we have an obligation to examine the facts before we jump 
to conclusions. Based on reports now coming from Jenin, it appears that 
far too many reached conclusions before they had the facts.
  In the end, Madam President, some may choose to cling to myths in 
order to perpetuate hatred and conflict. Some prefer to live in the 
realm of fiction rather than deal with cold, hard facts. But the rest 
of us should not engage in such self-delusion. If my reading of the 
facts is correct--and it may not be--but if it is correct, then we 
will, in the coming days, see the Jenin massacre as the massacre that 
never was.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________