The fighting in Jenin has been
publicized as a "massacre." The number of Palestinians who
died in Jenin may turn out to be as many as 100 or so, but not the many
hundreds mentioned in exaggerated media reports. (Editor's note: since
the printing of this article, U.S. envoys have visited Jenin and
declared that no massacre occurred). Any number of deaths is too many.
But is intense combat between two armed forces over eight days, combat
sufficiently intense to take the lives of 23 Israeli soldiers even
though they had military superiority, a "massacre?" Current
evidence is that the large majority of the Palestinians who were killed
were shooting at Israeli foot soldiers. Many, especially the civilians,
may well have been killed by the mines planted by Palestinian fighters
who booby trapped alleyways and houses that than collapsed on civilians
as well as Israeli soldiers. Armored bulldozers could have been used to
reduce Israeli casualties in these narrow alleyways at greater cost in
damage to property. They were not used until a couple of days before the
end of the fighting, after 13 Israeli foot soldiers were killed in such
a trap.
Soldiers whose stories I have heard are
incensed at being condemned for inhumanity when they know that they
risked their lives by fighting in ways aimed at avoiding civilian
casualties. As in every war, there were soldiers who surrendered to
their worst instincts and behaved in ways I deplore. But, from all I can
learn, the vast majority of soldiers, including many reservist students
torn away from their university studies, did their best to preserve
their human dignity and that of the civilians to whom they had to
relate, an almost impossible task when you know that even the most
innocent looking old man or woman may endanger your life. No matter how
hard they try, soldiers will not appear humane in the eyes of terrified
people who see relatives or friends arrested and made to strip to the
waist, so they can be checked for explosives and weapons.
Much of the responsibility for the
injuring and killing of civilians in this war must be born by the armed
Palestinians who chose to fight. In most cities and villages where the
Palestinians offered little armed resistance, there were almost no
civilian casualties. Where there were civilian casualties is where armed
Palestinians hid in the homes of civilians, as in Jenin, where they
mined civilian homes and public and commercial buildings and streets. By
taking cover among children and women to shoot at Israeli soldiers, they
used their fellow Palestinians as human shields. Whatever the goals of
these fighters, the way they fought showed little regard for the lives
and property of their own people.
Still, should the Israeli army not be
condemned for forcing innocent people out of their homes, for stopping
ambulances, for shooting at unarmed civilians who were trying to carry
on with their daily lives? My answer is yes and no. There were many
instances in which such actions were not required by security concerns.
Yet how is an army to know that in the heat of battle? If innocent
people are left in their homes when heavy fighting is expected to take
place, casualties will be much larger. Can ambulances be allowed total
freedom of movement (and I still don't have a clear picture of how often
ambulances were stopped), when there are incidents in
which bombs are found hidden under the stretchers holding a sick child
or adult, as occurred on more than one occasion? Can apparently
unarmed civilians be permitted free movement in areas of battle when
there are numerous instances in which these people turn out to be
carrying a grenade or suicide bomb (e.g., a "pregnant" young
woman whose belly turns out to be an explosive belt)? Vigilance is a
healthy psychological reaction when danger
is perceived.
Next page in this article
1 | 2 | 3