dinsdag 3 februari 2009

De 43 doden buiten de VN-school

De 43 doden buiten de VN-school:
 
Gebleken is dat onderzoek naar zogenaamde misdaden van Israel heel hard nodig is.
Niet alleen Hamas verspreidde valse berichten, maar zelfs de VN wist de berichtgeving zo te plooien dat het leek dat Israel misdaden beging.
De media liepen over van verontwaardiging over de oorlogsmisdaad van Israel dat een VN-school had beschoten waarin mensen hun toevlucht hadden gezocht met als gevolg 43 doden.
Nu is gebleken dat Israel die school helemaal niet beschoten heeft.
De Nederlandse Europarlementarier Van Buitenen is op dit moment de enige die daar ook voor de EU consequenties aan verbindt:
-De EU moet zich verontschuldigen bij Israel voor de valse beschuldiging
-De EU moet aandringen op onderzoek hoe het mogelijk is dat deze valse berichtgeving door John Ging, de VN-man mogelijk is geweest.
 
Het zou aardig zijn als de heren Van Bommel(SP) en Van Dam(PvdA) hier eens vragen over zouden stellen in de kamer.
De aanleiding lijkt zeer relevant: De VN-vertegenwoordiger is niet betrouwbaar in zijn berichtgeving, terwijl genoemde heren een onderzoek van de onpartijdige (!)VN bepleiten naar de vermeende oorlogsmisdaden van Israel in Gaza, waarvan de aanval op deze school er een was.
 
MS
 

In war, the saying goes, "the first victim is the truth." But an in-depth investigative report by the Canadian Globe and Mail's Middle East correspondent, Patrick Martin proved to be the exception to the rule.

Martin’s front-page report investigated the Israeli shelling of Hamas terrorists near a UN school that led to the tragic deaths of 43 civilians. His conclusion: the facts don't support the accepted story that the school itself was shelled.

According to Martin:

Physical evidence and interviews with several eyewitnesses, including a teacher who was in the schoolyard at the time of the shelling, make it clear: While a few people were injured from shrapnel landing inside the white-and-blue-walled UNRWA compound, no one in the compound was killed. The 43 people who died in the incident were all outside, on the street, where all three mortar shells landed.

Stories of one or more shells landing inside the schoolyard were inaccurate.

While the killing of 43 civilians on the street may itself be grounds for investigation, it falls short of the act of shooting into a schoolyard crowded with refuge-seekers.

Martin's report confirms the underreported Israeli accounts that the IDF accurately returned fire to the location from which it was being shelled by Hamas terrorists.

 

Some of Martin's key findings include:

  • There were no dead in the UN school, only some injured according to physical evidence and interviews with several eyewitnesses
  • Three Israeli mortar shells landed outside the school's compound, not inside
  • Incorrect public pronouncements by the UN helped allow "the misconception to linger"

The fact that people were milling around the area where Hamas was firing rockets is not Israel's fault, but rather points out that Hamas fired from an area frequented by civilians, engaging in what former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calls a double war crime: "Attacking [Israeli] civilians and hiding behind [Palestinian] civilians."

At the time, however, John Ging, UNRWA's operations director in Gaza, condemned the attack as "horrific" and suggested Israel knew it was targeting a UN facility.

"We have provided the GPS co-ordinates of every single one of our locations," he told the BBC. "They are clearly marked with UN insignia, flags flying, lights shining on the flags at night. It's very clear that these are United Nations installations."

Later, in the Globe and Mail investigation, Ging:

acknowledged in an interview this week that all three Israeli mortar shells landed outside the school and that "no one was killed in the school."

"I told the Israelis that none of the shells landed in the school," he said.

Political impact

We are often asked if media reports such as the Globe & Mail's or even our own can have an impact. The answer is an unequivocal yes. Already, one European Member of Parliament, Paul van Buitenen has submitted a parliamentary question based on the Globe & Mail's investigation. The MEP points out that UNRWA's John Ging admits in the article that Israel didn't attack the school but blames the confusion on the Israelis.

Van Buitenen goes on to say that considering the fact that the EU is UNRWA's single largest donor and that it wrongly condemned Israel for attacking the UN school:

  • Is the EU prepared to apologize to Israel for wrongly condemning it without checking the facts on the ground?
  • Is the EU prepared to investigate how it was possible that Mr. Ging apparently spread misleading information concerning the supposed attack on this UNRWA school and whether this was politically motivated?

We commend the Globe and

1 opmerking:

  1. Het is goed dat misinformatie onder de publieke aandacht wordt gebracht. In de aanloop naar de verkiezingen van 2004 beloofde Van Buitenen nog te vechten voor transparantie en ook dat zijn politieke voorkeuren geen rol zouden spelen bij het uitoefenen van zijn mandaat. Op 2 februari 2006 stemde hij echter tegen een verzoek van het Parlement om een rapport openbaar te maken over Oost-Jeruzalem. Misschien omdat dat rapport zijn politieke vrienden toen niet zo goed uitkwam?

    BeantwoordenVerwijderen