
The Sabra and Shatila massacre (or Sabra and Chatila massacre) was carried out in September 1982 by Lebanese Maronite Christian militias in then-Israeli-occupied Beirut, Lebanon, when Palestinian refugees were killed in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. The Maronite forces stood under the direct command of Elie Hobeika, who would later become a longtime Lebanon parliament member and in the 1990s also a cabinet minister. The camps were externally surrounded by Israeli soldiers throughout the incident, and the militias had been sent in by Israel to find PLO members. However, Israel's culpability in the killings is hotly disputed, and Israel has denied direct responsibility, while finding certain Israelis, among them Ariel Sharon, indirectly personally responsible. == Background == From 1975 to 1990, Lebanon was involved in a Lebanese Civil War between groups in competing alliances with neighboring countries. The Lebanese Maronite Christians, led by the Phalangist party and militia, were allied initially with Syria then with Israel, which provided them with arms and training to fight against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) faction; other factions were allied with Syria, Iran, and other states of the region. In addition, Israel had been training, arming, supplying and uniforming the Christian South Lebanon Army, led by Saad Haddad, since 1978. Infighting and massacres between these groups claimed several thousands of victims; notable massacres in this period included the Karantina Massacre (January 1976) by Phalangists against Palestinian refugees, Damour Massacre (January 1976) by the PLO against Maronites and the Tel el-Zaatar Massacre (August 1976) by Phalangists against Palestinian refugees. The two major invasions of Lebanon by Israel (in 1978 and 1982), claimed around 20,000 lives, mostly Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. The total death toll in Lebanon for the whole civil war period was up to 100,000 victims. ([http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm]) Sabra is the name of a poor neighborhood in the southern outskirts of West Beirut, which is adjacent to the Shatila UNRWA refugee camp set up for Palestinian refugees in 1949. Over the years the populations of the two areas became ever more mingled, and the loose terminology "Sabra and Shatila camps" has become usual. Their populations had been swelled by Palestinians and Shiites from the south fleeing the war. The PLO had been using southern Lebanon as a base for attacks on Israel, and Israel had in turn been bombing positions in southern Lebanon. The attempted assassination of Israeli Ambassador Shlomo Argov in London on June 4 provided a ''casus belli'' (although it ultimately turned out to be by an group hostile to the PLO, Abu Nidal) and turned the mutual hostilities into full-scale war; on June 6, 1982, Israel 1982 Invasion of Lebanon with 60,000 troops. Two months later, under a United States-sponsored cease-fire agreement signed in late August, the PLO agreed to leave Lebanon under international supervision, and Israel agreed not to advance further into Beirut and to guarantee the security of Palestinian civilians left behind in the refugee camps. On August 23, 1982, Bachir Gemayel, who was very popular among Maronites, was elected List of Presidents of Lebanon by the National Assembly. Israel had relied on Gemayel and his forces as a counterbalance to the PLO. On September 1, the evacuation of the PLO fighters from Beirut was completed. Two days later, Israel deployed its armed forces around the refugee camps; this was a clear breach of the cease-fire agreement, but Israel was not asked to withdraw by the supervising forces, the international forces which were overseeing the PLO withdrawal and guaranteeing the safety of the Palestinian refugees left on September 11, following the early withdrawal of U.S. forces. The next day Ariel Sharon, Israeli Defense Minister at the time, claimed that 2,000 PLO fighters had remained in Beirut. This claim was disputed by Palestinians. The Israeli Premier Menachem Begin brought Gemayel to Nahariya and strongly urged him to sign a peace treaty with Israel. According to some sources ([http://wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/sab3-f25_prn.shtml]), he also demanded acceptance of a military presence in southern Lebanon under control of Major Saad Haddad (a supporter of Israel), and action from Gemayel to move on the Palestinian fighters Israel claimed had remained hidden in refugee camps including Sabra and Shatila. However, the Phalangists, who were previously united as reliable Israeli allies were now split because of developing alliances with Syria, which opposed Israel. Gemayel now had to balance interests of many competing factions within Lebanon. In addition, according to several eyewitness accounts, he personally took offense at what he saw as Begin's high-handed attitude towards him. He refused Israel's demands to sign the treaty or to authorize operations in the refugee camps. On September 14, 1982, Gemayel was assassinated in a massive explosion which demolished his headquarters. The Palestinian and Muslim leaders denied any responsibility. However, Ariel Sharon blamed the assassination on Palestinians, which inflamed the animosity of Phalangists towards Palestinians. The next day, on September 15, the Israeli army reoccupied West Beirut, killing 88 people and wounding 254. This Israeli action breached its agreement with the United States not to occupy West Beirut ([http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_17_06_01.txt]); the US had also given written guarantees that it would ensure protection of the Muslims of West Beirut. Israel's occupation also violated its peace agreements with Muslim forces in Beirut and with Syria. Menachem Begin justified the occupation as "necessary to prevent acts of revenge by the Christians against the Palestinians” and to "maintain order and stability after Gemayel’s assassination". However, several days later, Ariel Sharon told the Knesset, Israel’s parliament: “Our entry into West Beirut was in order to make war against the infrastructure left by the terrorists”. The Israeli army then disarmed, as far as they were able, non-pro-Israeli militias and civilians in West Beirut, while leaving the Christian Phalangist militias in East Beirut fully armed. == Events == Ariel Sharon then invited Lebanese Phalangist militia units, trained and equipped by Israel, to enter the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps to “clean out the terrorists". Under the Israeli plan, Israeli soldiers would control the perimeters of the refugee camps and provide logistical support while the Phalangists would enter the camps, find the PLO fighters and hand them over to Israeli forces. However, ultimately no persons were handed over to Israeli forces, there was no fighting and no weapons were reported to be found in the camps. Documents presented in the Belgian war-crimes lawsuit against Ariel Sharon allegedly show that the claim about presence of the PLO fighters in the camps was a cover story prepared by Israel. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/1975849.stm] Sharon's instructions to the Phalangists emphasized that the Israeli military was in command of all the forces in the area. The Israeli military had completely surrounded and sealed off the camps and set up observation posts on the roofs of nearby tall buildings on September 15. The next day Israel announced that it controlled all key points in Beirut. The Israeli military met throughout the day with top Phalangist leaders to arrange the details of the operation. For the next two nights, from nightfall until late into the night the Israeli military fired illuminating flares above the camps to assist the militia. On the evening of September 16, 1982 the Phalangist militia, under the command of Elie Hobeika, entered the camps. For the next 36 to 48 hours, the Phalangists massacred the inhabitants of the refugee camps, while the Israeli military guarded the exits and continued to provide flares by night. A unit of 150 Phalangists (including some Haddad fighters, according to Saad Haddad as quoted by Robert Fisk) was assembled at 4:00 p.m. These militiamen armed with guns, knives and hatchets entered the camps at 6:00 p.m. A Phalangist officer reported 300 killings, including civilians, to the Israeli command post at 8:00 p.m., and further reports of these killings followed through the night. Some of these reports were forwarded to the Israeli government in Tel Aviv and were seen by a number of Israel's senior officials. At one point, a militiaman's radioed question to his commander Hobeika about what to do with the women and children in the refugee camp was overheard by an Israeli officer, who heard Hobeika reply that "This is the last time you're going to ask me a question like that; you know exactly what to do". Phalangist troops could be heard laughing in the background [http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_17_06_01.txt]. The Israeli officer reported this to his superior General Amos Yaron, who warned Hobeika against hurting civilians but took no further action. Lt. Avi Grabowsky was cited by the Kahan Commission as having seen (on that Friday) the murder of five women and children. He spoke to his battalion commander about it; he replied "We know, it's not to our liking, and don't interfere." Israeli soldiers surrounding the camps turned back refugees fleeing the massacre, as filmed by a Visnews cameraman. Phalangist militia troops regularly returned to Israeli units and were given food, water and ammunition throughout the massacre. Later in the afternoon, a meeting was held between the Israeli Chief of Staff and the Phalangist staff. According to the Kahan Commission's report (based on a Mossad agent's report), the Chief of Staff concluded that the Phalange should "continue action, mopping up the empty camps south of Fakahani until tomorrow at 5:00 a.m., at which time they must stop their action due to American pressure." He claimed that he had "no feeling that something irregular had occurred or was about to occur in the camps." At this meeting, he also agreed to provide the militia with a tractor, supposedly to demolish buildings. On Friday, September 16, while the camps still were sealed off, a few independent observers managed to enter. Among them were a Norwegian journalist and a Norwegian diplomat, who observed Phalangists during their cleanup operations, removing dead bodies from destroyed houses in the Shatila camp". [Harbo, 1982] The Phalangists did not exit the camps at 5:00 a.m. on Saturday as ordered. They forced the remaining survivors to march out of the camps, randomly killing individuals, and sending others to the stadium for interrogations; this went on for the entire day. The militia finally left the camps at 8:00 a.m. on September 18. The first foreign journalists allowed into the camps at 9:00 a.m. found hundreds of bodies scattered about the camp, many of them mutilated. The first official news of the massacre was broadcast around noon. The number of victims of the massacre is disputed. It is thought that three quarters of the victims were Palestinians, the rest Lebanese. Here follow the main claims ordered by number of deaths: *A letter from the head of the Red Cross delegation to the Lebanese Minister of Defense, cited in the Kahan Commission report as "exhibit 153", stated that Red Cross representatives had counted 328 bodies; but the commission noted that "this figure, however, does not include all the bodies..." * The Kahan Commission said that, according to "a document which reached us (exhibit 151), the total number of victims whose bodies were found from 18.9.82 to 30.9.82 is 460", claiming that this figure consists of "the dead counted by the Lebanese Red Cross, the International Red Cross, the Lebanese Civil Defense, the medical corps of the Lebanese army, and by relatives of the victims." * Israeli figures, based on IDF intelligence, cite a figure of 700–800. In the Kahan Commission's view, "this may well be the number most closely corresponding with reality." * According to the BBC, "at least 800" Palestinians died[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1935198.stm]. * Bayan Nuwayhed al-Hout in her Sabra And Shatila: September 1982 (Pluto, 2004) gives a minimum consisting of 1,300 named victims based on detailed comparison of 17 victim lists and other supporting evidence, and estimates an even higher total * Robert Fisk, one of the first journalists to visit the scene, quotes (without endorsing) unnamed Phalangist officers as saying "that 2,000 'terrorists' - women as well as men - had been killed in Chatila." * According to several sources, including an Al-Jazeera report and Prof. Ahmad Tall, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) ultimately counted 2,750 victims: 1,500 at the time, a further 900 by September 22, and an extra 350 on September 23 as more bodies were uncovered.[http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B26B8CE1-49E1-47FF-9ED5-8E1AE1305CC4.htm][http://www.allaboutpalestine.com/sabrashatillapics.html] * Many Palestinians claim between 3,000 and 3,500.[http://www.palestinehistory.com/mass05.htm] The massacre provoked outrage around the world. On December 16, 1982 the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. [http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/faabb796990cf95a852560d9005240cf?OpenDocument] == Israel's role in the massacre== In its initial statements, the Israeli government initially declared that those critics who regarded the IDF as having responsibility for the events at Sabra and Shatila were guilty of "a blood libel against the Jewish state and its Government." However, as the news of the massacre spread around the world, the controversy grew, and on September 25, 300,000 Israelis demonstrated in Tel Aviv demanding answers. On September 28, the Israeli Government resolved to establish a Commission of Inquiry, which was led by former Supreme Justice Kahan. The report included evidence from Israeli army personnel, as well as political figures and Phalangist officers. In the report, published in the spring of 1983, the Kahan Commission stated that there was no evidence that Israeli units took direct part in the massacre and that it was the "direct responsibility of Phalangists". However, the Commission recorded that Israeli military personnel was aware that a massacre was in progress without taking serious steps to stop it, and that reports of a massacre in progress were made to senior Israeli officers and even to an Israeli cabinet minister; it therefore regarded Israel as bearing part of the "indirect responsibility". Among those it considered to bear a part of this "indirect responsibility", the commission found that Ariel Sharon bore "personal responsibility" and recommended his dismissal from the post of Defense Minister; it also recommended the dismissal of Director of Military Intelligence Yehoshua Saguy, and the effective demotion of Division Commander Amos Yaron for at least three years. These recommendations were carried out. Even though the Kahan Commission concluded that Sharon should not hold public office again, he would later become Prime Minister of Israel [http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/Sabra.asp]. Critics of the commission report pointed to the fact that Israel was investigating itself and argued the report amounted to a whitewash; for instance, Noam Chomsky says: : "The Kahan Commission report was a shameful whitewash; see ''Fateful Triangle'', chapter 6, and Shimon Lehrer, ''Ha'ikar Hehaser'' ("The Missing Crucial-Point"; Amit, Jerusalem, 1983). In a close critical analysis of the events and the Kahan Commission report, Lehrer shows that its conclusions were untenable and argues that the Defense Minister and Chief of Staff should have faced 20-year jail sentences for premeditated murder under Israeli law. While sharply criticized in Israel, in the U.S. the Kahan Commission report was depicted, without analysis, as most impressive or even approaching the sublime.''"[http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c06-s06.html] Some commentators, such as Noam Chomsky and Robert Fisk, have suggested that Israel could have prevented the massacre. Furthermore, they have doubted that there were any PLO members in the camps, because (1) the Kahan Commission claim that the Israeli army sent only 150 Phalangists to fight what it said was 2,000 PLO members would be an unrealistic and poor military decision and (2) the Phalangists suffered only two casualties, an improbable outcome of a supposedly 36-hour battle of 150 militants with 2,000 experienced PLO soldiers [FT]. Defenders of Israel point out that Israel never claimed all of the PLO members (as opposed to Fatah militants) were armed or tried to organize a defense. Also, on several previous occasions, the Phalangists were used by the Israeli army to filter out PLO members from the rest of the Lebanese population. They claim that on those other occasions, the conduct of Phalangists was good. Israel points out that the Phalangist field commander, Elie Hobeika, was at that time already maintaining contacts with Syria (he openly switched allegiance to Syria at a later date), suggesting that he may have orchestrated the massacres as a political provocation against his Israeli allies. Finally, Israel argues that it never issued an order (on this occasion or any other) that would authorize the killing of unarmed civilians. However, Israel had given a written commitment that it would protect Palestinian civilians (as was its duty as an occupying power under international law), yet Israel did nothing to protect the civilians when it became aware of the massacre. ==Sabra and Shatila After the Israeli Invasion== Israel began to leave Beirut shortly after the news of the massacre broke. The protection of the camps was entrusted to Italy. Following attacks on the peacekeepers, Italy left Lebanon. The safety of the camps was then entrusted to the Amal militia. In 1985, Amal turned on the Palestinians and the PLO. Beginning that year, Amal began a three year siege of Sabra and Shatila. By the end of the siege, and some intra-Palestinian fighting, only seven families were left alive in the camps. (See War of the Camps) == Belgian court proceedings == After Sharon's 2001 election to the post of Prime Minister of Israel, a lawsuit was filed by relatives of the victims of the massacre in Belgium alleging his personal responsibility for the massacres, under a 1993 law first used against people implicated in the Rwandan Genocide. The Belgian Supreme Court ruled on February 12, 2003, that Sharon (and others involved, such as Israeli General Yaron) could be indicted under this accusation. Israel claimed that the lawsuit was initiated for political reasons. As another case was filed in Belgium alleging responsibility of the former United States President George H. W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell for war-crimes in the first Iraq War. The U.S. questioned the jurisdiction of Belgian courts to try war crimes committed elsewhere, asked European allies to pressure Belgium and threatened to move NATO headquarters from Belgium. Additionally, a variety of cases against other world leaders, such as Fidel Castro, Augusto Pinochet, and Yasser Arafat, were filed in Belgian courts, causing some diplomatic difficulties. Eventually, Belgium amended its law to require that human rights complaints could only be filed if the victim or suspect was a Belgian citizen or long-term resident at the time of the alleged crime. The Belgian Parliament also guaranteed diplomatic immunity for world leaders and other government officials visiting the country. Elie Hobeika, the Phalangist commander at the time of the massacre never stood trial and held a post of a minister in Lebanese government in the 1990s. He was assassinated by a car bomb in Beirut on January 24, 2002, as he was preparing to testify in Sharon's trial [http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/460.cfm]. On September 24 2003, Belgium's highest court dismissed the war crimes complaints against Ariel Sharon, ruling there was no longer a legal basis for the lawsuit. ==References== * * Joel Campagna (April 2002). [http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/460.cfm The Usual Suspects]. ''World Press Review'' 49 (4). Web journal article, retrieved December 4, 2004. * Noam Chomsky (1989). ''[http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c06-s06.html Necessary Illusions: Thought control in democratic societies]''. South End Press. ISBN 0-89-608366-7. * Amal Hamdan (September 16, 2003). [http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B26B8CE1-49E1-47FF-9ED5-8E1AE1305CC4.htm Remembering Sabra and Shatila]. ''Aljazeera''. Retrieved December 4, 2004. * General Assembly United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (December 16, 1982). ''[http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/faabb796990cf95a852560d9005240cf?OpenDocument 37/123. The situation in the Middle East]''. Retrieved December 4, 2004. * John Harbo (September 20, 1982). Aftenposten. Middle East correspondent Harbo was also quoted with the same information on ABC News "Close up, Beirut Massacres", broadcast January 7, 1983. * Barnaby Mason (April 17, 2002). [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1935198.stm Analysis: 'War crimes' on West Bank]. ''BBC World News''. Retrieved December 4, 2004. * [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/1975849.stm New 'evidence' in Sharon trial] (May 8, 2002). ''BBC World News''. Retrieved December 4, 2004. * Jean Shaoul (February 25, 2002). [http://wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/sab3-f25_prn.shtml Sharon’s war crimes in Lebanon: the record]. ''World Socialist Web Site''. Retrieved December 4, 2004. * Ahmad Tamal (no date). [http://www.allaboutpalestine.com/sabrashatillapics.html Sabra and Shatila]. ''[http://www.allaboutpalestine.com/index.shtml All About Palestine]''. Retrieved December 4, 2004. * Chris Tolworthy (March 2002). [http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/Sabra.asp Sabra and Shatila massacres -- why do we ignore them?]. ''[http://www.globalissues.org Global Issues]''. Retrieved December 4, 2004. * [http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_17_06_01.txt Transcript of "The Accused"] (June 17, 2001). ''BBC World News'' (BBC-1). Retrieved December 4, 2004. *:Note: the BBC has a disclaimer that says "THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT: BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MISHEARING AND THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS, THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY." * Matthew White (update July 2004). [http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm Secondary Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century]. Retrieved December 4, 2004. * Shashaa, Esam (no date). [http://www.palestinehistory.com/mass05.htm The massacre of Sabra and Shatila Camps - 16.09.1982]. Retrieved December 4, 2004. ==See Also== *Ariel Sharon *Atrocities *List of massacres *State Terrorism *Laws of war *International law *Arab-Israeli conflict ==External links== * [http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/17/newsid_2519000/2519637.stm BBC News archive and video] * [http://www.littleredbutton.com/sabra_shatila/ Sabra Shatila Massacre Photographs, 1982] * [http://www.littleredbutton.com/lebanon/ Eyewitness Lebanon] An on-line book, with eyewitness accounts and photos from 91 international correspondents. * [http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/jun02herman.html Ariel Sharon, From Sabra/Shatila to Jenin: Another U.S.-approved “good genocidist” free to kill] * [http://www.counterpunch.org/heller09212004.html Sabra-Shatila, 22 Years Later: Reagan and the Killing Fields of Lebanon] * [http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/kahan.html Kahan Commission of Inquiry] – Israel's official investigation into the massacre. * [http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1982-1984/104%20Report%20of%20the%20Commission%20of%20Inquiry%20into%20the%20e Report of the Kahan Commission] - hosted by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. * [http://www.free-lebanon.com/News/Documents_of_Note/DOC_chap8/doc_chap8.html DOC] Lebanese account claiming Sharon's 100% innocence * [http://www.aceviper.net/members/cobra/07.html Cobra] Hobeika & Sabra Shatilah (written by Hobeika's bodyguard) * [http://www.geocities.com/sharonisinnocent Innocent Sharon] Documentation * [http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/Witnesses/witnesses.html Witnesses] * [http://www.gotc.org/st16.7.1.htm Statement by Guardians of the Ceder], a Lebanese-Christian nationalist group, expressing its regret over the unilaterality of the investigation in Belgium. Terrorist incidents Lebanese history Israeli history Massacres War crimes 1982 ms:Penyembelihan Sabra dan Shatila
==Hebrew arabs?== There are Eye Witness accounts that the supposed Maronite Christians on the ground during this massacre spoke fluent Hebrew and a little English, and where unable to speak Arabic or Aramaic. One Such Eye-Witness is Dr. Swee Chai Ang, who was a witness in the Kahan Commission of inquiry. It's also not stated that those who tried to escape the camp were denied exit from the IDF (who were, supposedly, there for their protection). --User:Irishpunktom 13:03, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) ---- Uri asks why I deleted "anarchist" from the description of Noam Chomsky here, and also put the word back. Two points: (1) Whether Chomsky is an anarchist (as an aside, he describes himself as a "libertarian socialist" and draws an equivalence with anarchism) is irrelevant to the quote given; (2) The term "anarchist" is a complex and usually misinterpreted label, and often applied as a means of discrediting a speaker, in much the same way as labels are applied in irrelevant contexts (eg "Bob the satanist says Coca Cola is better than Pepsi" or "Fred the communist says ". : Chomsky has been known for a last time for a series of political views, that are most often classified as "anarchist". His writings stem out of his political philosophy; therefore it is important to mention his political platform to describe them properly. Given the general bias in the ME pages of Wiki, I believe that (2) is the reason for its inclusion here. Certainly it adds nothing to the quote presented, in which case one does have to ask the questions: Why mention it? If the deleted adjective is not intended to convey some meaning, why re-place it after deletion? And, finally, if the meaning is not (2), above, then it must be (1), in which case: What does this add to the quote from Chomsky which is so important it needs stating and preserving by calling him an "anarchist"? : As I said earlier, the question of Chomsky's being an anarchist is of importance here. There's an important difference between the examples you brought above and the question with Chomsky: Bob's religious and Fred's political views are irrelevant to their position with regard to Pepsi; on the other hand it is obvious that Chomsky's political views have an influence on his historical analysis. --User:Uriyan This is not a trivial point - it is merely a subtle aspect of the more general bias visible throughout Wiki's middle east pages. ---- Call him leftist, then. It covers both socialism and anarchism. (I haven't followed the debate, so I don't know if his political inclinations are relevant or not.) -- GayCom : Chomsky's political views are not simply leftists; they are widely considered extreme leftist; now I don't care whether it's anarchist or not, but I think it would be against the truth to describe him as a moderate (by default), whereas he's really a radical. --User:Uriyan ---- What's the deal with the spelling? I have only seen "Shatila." Could someone explain (in the article) why there are two spellings (or transliterations), and why one is prefered over the other? User:Slrubenstein : "Shatila" is a more faithful transcription; the Arabic original does not have a shadda over the [l] so it's short. "Chatila" is merely the French rendition of the same name. --User:Uriyan Without getting into the politics, can we then agree to at least change the spelling from French to English? User:Danny : I agree. --User:Uriyan ::ditto User:Slrubenstein ---- :The report included the evidence of Israeli army personnel, as well as political figures and Phalange officers. In the report, published in the spring of 1983, the Commission stated that there was no evidence that Israeli units took part in the massacre or were even were aware of it. The last part is not true. The Kahan commission recorded lots of evidence that Israeli forces and even some Israeli politicians knew of the massacre while it was still going on. When I get a chance I'll quote from the report itself. -- bdm ---- Could someone add that the Belgian case has recently been withdrawn following a law change (one of the parties involved should actually be related to Belgium in some way, and furthermore the complaint should not target any foreign leader in exercise). I didn't find the original news report but here are two alternative sources: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indictsharon/message/137 http://www.truthnews.net/world/2003090075.htm ---- This article is *very* POV. I will be putting in some edits when I have time, but for now, I will restore some of the links that were removed by vandals (pointing to Chomsky and anti-Sharon sites... go figure...). Oh, and Chomsky is *NOT* a "radical leftist" (which implies Communist), he is a social Anarchist. Anarchism is about as diammetrically opposed to Communism as you can get. Considering that the vast majority of the world is overwhelmingly opposed to US/Israeli militarism and aggression, I don't think it is anywhere near accurate to describe Chomsky's views as "radical". --User:Gatto 19:40, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) :Hmm, without getting into the "leftist" issue, if Chomsky (and indeed "social Anarchism") isn't "radical" then it is hard to imagine who or what is. In any event, please read from the top of this Edit page down, the issues of Chomsky's politics and radicalism have already been discussed. User:Jayjg 03:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) ---- The sentence "While the dead included innocent civilians, many if not most were armed fighters" gives the impression that the Palestinian casualties were largely combatants. How can this be consistent with the facts stated further down the article, that the massacre was committed by just 150 Phalangists, who suffered only two casualties? : Indeed. I have deleted: "While the dead included innocent civilians, many if not most were armed fighters." as it is simply untrue and there is not one shred of evidence to support the claim. As has been mentioned, this article is highly POV and needs re-writing. I am unsure whether Robert Fisk is a radical liberal, certainly people in the UK don't use that political description, it's a N. American term which is unused in Britain. A more important point, however, is that the assumption appears to be that the politics of individuals either validates or invalidates their words. In a serious article such notions, surely, have no place. Is everyone to be given a politcal label? :: It should also be pointed out that Fisk was one of a group of 3 journalists who were the first to enter the camps, in fact not all the Phalange had, at that point, moved out. ::: It should also be pointed out that the SLA were also involved. User: John Ball 30/07/04 9:30' Hi Jayjg. I see that You have removed my remark Pirs replay and my response to him from this page and wonder why. I thought the meaning with this page was to communicate regarding the articles or am I wrong? John :Hi John. Actually, I've just moved the current conversation down to the bottom of the page, where it's easier to find. I also had some trouble trying to locate this (your latest) comment and respond to it. I'll leave this conversation here, but it makes things much easier if you put new conversation at the bottom of the page. Also, I strongly recommend getting a userid; they're free. User:Jayjg 07:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==Links== I think that the link: Damour (http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/hobeika_damour/hobeika_damour.html) Damour massacre is unnecessary as it does not relate directly to the article, perhaps an article on the Damour Massacre itself is necessary though? Also this link: From Israel to Damascus (http://www.israeltodamascus.com/index.htm) – a book written by Elie Hobeika's bodyguard that includes the description of how Hobeika carried out the massacre. Seems to be not working, I would like to delete these, any objections? Please advise. Joseph E. Saad (August 5th, 2004) :Thanks for noticing that, I've fixed the links. User:Jayjg 21:54, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::No problem you are welcome, but why the Damour massacre link, I am puzzled? - Joseph E. Saad (August 5th, 2004) :::I'm not sure, but I believe it was put in there as an example of a similar massacre in Lebanon during the same timeframe, and perhaps as contributing to the Phalangist rationale for the Sabra and Shatila Massacre. User:Jayjg 01:44, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::::Well I suspect, but have no proof, that it was put there to diminish the tragedy that was this massacre, by showing the PLO or Palestinians in a bad light. In any case I will leave it, but still feel quite strongly that it should be moved to a better spot, namely an article that deals with that particular massacre. I guess what does it matter anyway? There have been so many massacres, and killings in the Middle East, what a legacy that will be left for the future generations. Thanks for the input, and cooperation.User:Joseph E. Saad 08:23, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC) ---- "At one time it was a radio question aimed at Elie Hobeika asking what to do with the women and children and intercepted by an Israeli liaison officer (he replied "This is the last time you're going to ask me a question like that, you know exactly what to do", Phalange troops at the spot laughing having heard that)" Could someone provide me a s source for this communictions? :A bit of googling reveals that it may be from a transcript of the BBC Panorama programme "The accused": [http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_17_06_01.txt] "''The Israelis had a forward command post about 200 metres away which overlooked the camps. There were Phalangists stationed on the roof with the Israelis. It was around this time, 7 o'clock on Thursday evening that an Israeli officer stationed on the roof overheard a deeply troubling conversation. He was standing close to Elie Hobeika, the Leader of the Phalange operation. A soldier inside the camps came on the radio. He told Hobeika he was holding 50 women and children. What should he do with them? Hobeika replied "That's the last time you're going to ask me a question like that. You know exactly what to do". There was raucous laughter from the other Phalangists. The Israeli officer reported this to his superior, General Amos Yuron. There would be more worrying reports to the Yuron, but beyond warning Elie Hobeika not to harm civilians the General took no further action that night. Ariel Sharon was now at a cabinet meeting in Jerusalem. Ministers heard the Phalange were now in the camps. Deputy Prime Minister David Levy was deeply troubled.''" - User:Pir 19:36, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) ==Norwegian observers== I've tried to add some information regarding events in Sabra and Shatila-story. Jayjg seems to be very eager to have them removed and I wonder why. I'm new to Wikipedia so the editing might not be according to the rules and in that case I'd appreciate any advice. John (user 80.91.33.33) 0410.04. 09.20 gmt :Hi John, there's nothing wrong with your editing, but this article touches a subject that is very sensitive for some. Maybe you could provide a source for the information you added, and the names of the journalist and diplomat? - User:Pir 12:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) Hi Pir. My name is John Harbo and I worked as a correspondent for a Norwegian paper in Beirut at the time, so I am the source for the information given. I was myself in the camp on friday, on time alone and the other together with charge d'affares Gunnar Flakstad at the Norwegian embassy. As You see from what I added the observations we did in the camps were limited, but I added it because it supplements the information given later in the article that the first journalists entered the camps on saturday morning. In addition at least one american journalist entered the camp friday afternoon. I'll try to check his name and give it to You. This information can be checked by looking at the chapter "Direct responsibility" in The Kahane report. regards John 04.10.04 14.50 :Hi John. As pir says, the article is controversial at best, so any additions need to be attributed. Also, it would be preferable if you got yourself a User name. User:Jayjg 18:53, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) Hi Jayjg. Sorry. I didn't check at the bottom. Thought the page were divided into different subjects so that here was one discussion running regarding the events and another on the links to this article. Have also got a user id as You recomended. And by the way: the american journalist that also observed the Phalangists on friday was Loren Jenkins of The Washington Post. John E :Great. Now, what would you like to include, and why is it relevant? Please note that your existing edit does not mesh well with the existing text, and in particular contradicts some of it. Including the names of the journalists etc. would be helpful. Please bring the text here for discussion first before including it. Also, please sign your edits with four tilde signs like this:~~~~ User:Jayjg 15:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
the additional information I want to include is in line with what I have proposed earlier. It is relevant becase the information given in the article refers only to israeli soldiers as eywitnesses. The persons I refer to are, as far as I know, the only idependent observers that actually entered the part of the camps that the phalangists controlled (they did not controll the entire camp-area), during the time of the massacers. Jaijg says it does not fit in with the existing text and contradicts part of it. As far as I see it contradicts only the statement that the first journalists were allowed into the camps on saturday. That is correct, but still the fact remains that a few managed to enter on friday. Its a difference between beeing allowed to enter and manage to pass the israeli-controlled lines during a military situation. Jayjg recommends that the names om the journalists and the diplomat should be included. This been an encyclopedia I feel that the focus on the identity of the persons mentioned is not needed - as long as it is given on this discussion-page - and accepted as valid.
I suggest the following add, placed after the existing sentence: Others reportet what they were witnessing to their superiors.
On friday, while the camps were still sealed off, a few independent observers managed tho enter. Among them were foreign journalists and one diplomat, a Norwegian. They observed Phalangists during their cleaning up operations, removing dead bodies from destroyed houses in the Shatila camp.
Then the article can continue with: Phalangists kept coming to the israelis for food............
If the content is accepted on the basis of the information given, I feel this text-change should fit in, but I'm of course open to other suggestions. ~~~~ User:John E
:As it is, it's anonymous; Encyclopedias mention individuals all the time. If you can include the names of the individuals, and produce some outside confirmation that it actually happened (aside from essentially anonymous comments on a Talk: page) then I have no problem with it. User:Jayjg 15:03, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The changes I have proposed is anonymous as it will appear in the article. According to my opinion this fits in with the style used in this article. Major actors as to what took place - Hobeika, Yaron and Sharon - is mentioned by name. Other witnesses - like individual israeli soldiers observing part of the massacers - is not named.
Jayjg calls the information given on the talk page as essentiallly anonymoous. I have given my name and professsional background. That should explain my position for beeing in the camps, observing what I did on that friday. I was twice in Shatila. Both times encountering the phalangists and was ordered to leave. The incident were the phalangists were observed busy clearing out dead bodies, took place when I was together with the Norwegian diplomat, mr. Flakstad. He is now dead. As I mentioned earlier, my information can be verified by a reference to it in the rapport given by the Kahan-commision. It was also inluded in a documentary made by the ABC-network on the massacers. I hope this additional information is enough to verify the information I try to include. User:John E
:I can't locate the information in the Kahan commission report (here is a link [http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/kahan-commission-contents.html]); can you show me where it is please? User:Jayjg 17:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In the chapter named "The Direct Responsibility" there is a pharagraph referring to testimony given by foreign doctors and health personell regarding the identity of the troops in the camp. At the end it says that my testemony to the commission confirms this information.
User:John E 08:30 25 Oct 2004 (GMT)
:John, the testimony in the Kahan commission report refers to you confirming the identities of two individiuals, not the Phalangists clearing out dead bodies. Have I missed something? User:Jayjg 21:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is what the report says: "Therefore, the testimony of these three witnesses also indicates that the only military force seen in the area was a Phalangist one. A similar conclusion can be drawn from the statement of Norwegian journalist John Harbo (no. 62)." It means that my testimony confirms the identity of the soldiers observed in the camps. Regarding the fact that I observed the phalangists clearing out dead bodies, You have to take my world for it. To be quite honest I can not see why that should be so difficult. It should be an established fact that the phalangists were in the camps.
User:John E 07:00 26 Oct 2004 (GMT)
:Right, but it's not an established fact that you saw them clearing out bodies; as much as I believe you, Wikipedia doesn't really take "you have to take my word for it" as a legitimate reference. User:Jayjg 19:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::We're going to see this more and more, though as Wikipedia becomes more important. We need a way to deal with things like this, and it seems that our "no original research rule" (and our rule against "sutobiography") really do become problematic here. John, have you ever published any of this anywhere? That would solve the problem: assuming you are who you say you are, you are certainly a quotable source and we could just quote what you've written elsewhere. The (perverse) problem is that we really have no way currently to accommodate someone coming forward like this with (presumably valid, but previously unpublished) eyewitness material. - User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 22:52, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
:John's statement does not change any material facts. His presence is acknowledged by the report and he also mentioned an ABC broadcast. So, what's the fuss about him posting his account? Are you guys trying to install yourself as self-appointed approvers of every word related to Israel? If so, you may want to reread WP editing rules, which require no prior approval from anybody. User:HistoryBuffEr 02:06, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
::Prove the poster is John Harbo. Once you've done that, we'll move on to the other issues. User:Jayjg 02:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::This from the many who just chided me (on Talk:History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) for ''my'' skepticism? In any event, I've raised the question on the Village Pump of how we can deal with material like this. If the material is already published elsewhere (e.g. in a Norwegian newspaper) we can just cite that and this is simple, but if not? As I say, we probably need to solve this problem in general. This is a great test case.
:::John, am I correct that you are the John Harbo who writes for ''Aftenposten''? In which case can we settle this by having our skeptic, User:Jayjg, email you at jon.harbo@aftenposten.no to confirm that you are this person and you can reply to him? Jay, I assume that you are not so skeptical as to doubt that http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article684334.ece establishes that ''Aftenposten'' has a reporter by that name with this email address. And, John if that's not who you are, is there some other newspaper, etc. that you are connected to through which we could similarly validate that you are how you say you are?
:::Still, Wikipedia as an institution needs a better way to handle this sort of thing. Sorry to be putting you through this sort of hassle. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 05:16, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
::::Yes, WP needs a solution for the problem that any clueless dweeb can override an expert here, but that's another issue. This guy here just wants to add one largely immaterial and harmless sentence, and I see no need to submit him to colonoscopy over it. User:HistoryBuffEr 06:40, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
:::::Well, yes, we need a solution for the problem that "any clueless dweeb can override an expert", but I believe we need a solution for the problem I was pointing up, as well. Do you disagree? Because I don't think I wrote anything here to deserve the tone of your response that starts out by saying "yes" and then turns into an attack (maybe on me, maybe on Jay, I really can't tell in the midst of the sarcasm). -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 23:50, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
::::::Hey, bad coffee day? :) My comment was about WP in general, not directed at you. User:HistoryBuffEr 00:19, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
I agree that the information I try to add is minor and should be harmless. But since there is so much debate regarding it I'll try to solve the two major problems it has caused. Regarding my identity. I am working for Aftenposten and the link given is to one of my articles on the net. Several others can be found if You do a google-search and in addition search for Aftenposten within the results. Also: any of You might send en e-mail to my adress: john.harbo@aftenposten.no and I'll confirm it.
Regarding publication of my observations. Its done in an article in Aftenposten on sept. 20th. It's for obvious resons not on the net and its not in the papers electronical base, only on paper. Whats written about my observations on friday here is the following. "When we tried to drive into the camp on friday we were stopped by soldiers which were busy collecting and removing dead bodies." I can get a photo-copy of the article, which is in norwegian, and fax or mail it to for example Jayjg. I also have a copy of the ABC program on vhs-tape. I could find it and post a quote of my statement there which regards the observation I have tryed to add in the wikipedia-article. Then any of You could contact ABC and the might perhaps be helpful and check the program if they have it in their files.
If this is not acceptable I'm open to other suggestions to settle this dispute.
User:John E 08:50 27 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Jay, I repeat: given that we seem to have established that this is, indeed John Harbo, can we consider this settled?
John, just put the information in the article and cite your own article ''Aftenposten'' article. ''Aftenposten'' is a perfectly valid source, the fact that you are the same person who wrote the article does not make it less so. Wikipedia:Cite your sources explains the appropriate way to cite a magazine or newspaper article. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 23:50, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
::I have no reason to doubt John Harbo's account, but I take exception to the premise that Aftenposten is a perfectly valid source. The editorial platform is blatantly hostile toward anything Israeli, though it has gotten somewhat better with the new editor-in-chief Matre. --User:Leifern 23:45, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
:It works for me, though it still doesn't solve the problem of "clueless dweebs" over-riding experts. ;-) User:Jayjg 02:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The ariticle itself is now protected so I post my proposed add and reference here as a start.
"On friday, while the camps still were sealed off, a few indpendent observers managed to enter. Among them a norwegian journalist and a norwegian diplomat which observed Phalangists during their cleaning up operations, remowing dead bodies from destroyed houses in the Shatila camp". (Referred in article in the newspaper Aftenposten sept. 20th. 1982 written by its Middle East-correspondent John Harbo, which were also qouted with the same information on ABC News "Close up, Beirut Massacers", broadcasted Jan. 7th. 1983).
I'we suggested earlier where it could fit in, so if the content and attrution to Aftenposten and ABC is done correctly, then the dispute should be solved. (By the way I'm not sure weather the attribution to the publishes sources should be part of the article, or not. The little trick with the pointed arrow just seems to work with web-quotations.)
And finally to clarify. This is what was said in the ABC-program, which were made by Bill Redeker. His voice: "20 hours after the Phalange occupied Sabra and Chatila a Norwegian journalist tries to enter but is blocked by a bulldozer, its scoop filled with bodies." Then my statement on camera describing the situation: "The bulldozer appears from the right side, from a side street. It backs into the main street and faces us. And then we see the grab filled with dead bodies. If it was full it would be about 8 to 10 bodies".
User:John E 15:58 28 Oct 2004 (GMT)
:(In Wikipedia MoS format and good English) add at the appropriate place in the flow of text:
::On Friday, while the camps still were sealed off, a few independent observers managed to enter. Among them were a Norwegian journalist and a Norwegian diplomat, who observed Phalangists during their cleanup operations, removing dead bodies from destroyed houses in the Shatila camp". [Harbo, 1982]
:Then down in the reference section:
::* Harbo, John, (September 20, 1982). ''ideally get actual article name here''. ''Aftenposten''. Middle East correspondent Harbo was also quoted with the same information on ABC News "Close up, Beirut Massacres", broadcast January 7, 1983.
:User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 05:19, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
I asume Jayjg also agrees, so that the add can be posted when the article again is open for editing?
User:John E 09.52 29 Oct 2004 (GMT)
:Looks good to me. The following paragraph should also be revised to remove the contradiction about when journalists first entered the camp. User:Jayjg 17:33, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
==Lebanon invasion==
Re. the dispute of
''The PLO had been using Lebanon as a staging grounds for attacks on Israel's northern border, and on that pretext Israel justified its invasion of southern Lebanon on June 6, 1982. '' :::::::::::::vs. ''The PLO had been using Lebanon as a staging grounds for attacks on Israel's northern border, and in response Israel invaded southern Lebanon on June 6, 1982.'' Noam Chomsky writes in Fateful Triangle that the actual reason/pretext for the invasion of Lebanon given at the time was the assassination attempt against Israeli ambassador Shlomo Argov in London by Abu Nidal. Abu Nidal was a rival to the PLO at that time, in fact he had been condemned to death by the PLO ; at the trial of the three members of the Abu Nidal team, the commander was later found to be an Iraqi secret service agent.
Also, during the time preceding the invasion, there were apparently almost no PLO attacks on Israel (two if I remember well). I can look up some references if you like. - User:Pir 23:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) :That would be helpful, pir. Noam Chomsky is an unreliable source about everything except linguistics. User:Jayjg 14:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::Another gratuitous and unsubstantiated slap against the credibility Noam Chomsky. Is this opinion based on disagreements with his anti-Zionist politics or is it just anti-semitism? In any case, I suspect that he is a more reliable source than a Wikipedian editor. User:Alberuni 14:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::Let's maintain a collegial tone please. - User:Pir 15:11, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::I'm dismayed; I thought we were starting on a new footing, Alberuni. Did our discussion yesterday mean nothing? User:Jayjg 15:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::Oh, was that too antagonistic? You should be free to slander Noam Chomsky and dismiss authors whom you dislike and no one should dispute your baseless accusations. But at least we will have a collegial atmosphere. User:Alberuni 16:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::::Yes, of course it was too antagonistic; good faith would recognize that. Dismissing Chomsky as an unreliable source is not the same thing as attacking you. See more below. User:Jayjg 17:04, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::Regarding the pretext for invasion, there are many sources that contend that Israel's massive invasion of Lebanon (and other military activities) were/are driven more by Israel's insatiable thirst for water (much like America's insatiable thirst for oil drives military policy) and desire to control Litani River water resources, not by sporadic and militarily ineffective provocations of PLO militants. [http://web.macam.ac.il/~arnon/Int-ME/water/THE%20LITANI%20RIVER.htm] [http://www.diak.org/water/CES%20Hydrostrategic%20Territory%20in%20the%20Jordan%20Basin%20Water,%20War,.htm] [http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=123&aid=166&pg=1] [http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/waterwars.htm] User:Alberuni 14:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::Alberuni, I think you are conflagrating the official pretext with the real reasons driving the war. Let's not go into the "real reasons" stuff at this point, otherwise we'll get into a huge edit conflict (it would be more appropriate to discuss it in the Operation Peace for Galilee article anyway). Let's just deal with the pretext for now. - User:Pir 15:11, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::::Very wise, pir. "Real reasons" discussions aka Conspiracy theory discussions, tend to get heated. User:Jayjg 15:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::::Which is why the article should describe the "reason" as the "stated reason" the "purported reason" the "ostensible reason": or the "pretext" -- because it wasn't the real reason. User:Alberuni 16:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::::::"Stated reason" is the only NPOV descriptor of that lot. "Pretext", "purported", and "ostensible" all imply that the "real" reason was something else. User:Jayjg 17:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) Chomsky appears to be quite reliable in this case at least. Although Fateful Triangle has only a couple of general refernces at this point (how the start of the invasion was reported in the US press), a quick google search reveals that this version of the events is widely accepted: * Chomsky : "''Having failed to elicit the desired PLO reaction, Israel simply manufactured a pretext for its long-planned invasion of June 1982, claiming that it was in retaliation for an attempt to assassinate the Israeli Ambassador to London; the attempt, as Israel was aware, was carried out by the terrorist Abu Nidal organization that had been at war with the PLO for years and did not so much as have an office in Lebanon.''"[http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199309--.htm] *"''[Abu Nidal's] most famous attack on an Israeli came in June 1982, when three gunmen seriously wounded then-ambassador Shlomo Argov in London, giving Menachem Begin's government the excuse it needed to implement then-defense minster Ariel Sharon's plan to invade Lebanon and push the PLO out of Beirut. Told it was Abu Nidal's men, not Arafat's, who shot Argov, then-chief of staff Rafael Eitan was reported to have said, "Nidal, Shmidal, they're all the same.''" (Haaretz, 2004 [http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=199289&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y]) *"''[Abu Nidal's] organization attempted to assassinate Israel's ambassador to Britain, Shlomo Argov in June 1982. The attack on Argov, which left him seriously injured, triggered then-defense minister Ariel Sharon's invasion of Lebanon, which aimed to repel Palestinian forces controlled by Yasser Arafat. Abu Nidal's group had broken from Arafat's Fatah organization years before and had even plotted attempts on Arafat's life.''" (Haaretz, 2002 [http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=199216&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0]) *"''A suspected attempt by Abu Nidal gunmen on the life of Israel's ambassador to Britain in 1982 triggered Israel's massive invasion of Lebanon that year.''" (BBC, 2002 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2206187.stm]) *"''In 1982, Abu Nidal gunmen shot and critically wounded Israel's ambassador in London. Israel blamed Arafat's PLO and launched a huge invasion of Lebanon, driving Arafat and his forces out of the country.''" (USA today, 2003 [http://waqarkhan.com/family/WAQAR/USAToday.htm]) *"''June 3, 1982: Attempted assassination of Shlomo Argov, Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom. The attack will trigger the war Israel waged in Lebanon against the PLO presence.''" ( International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, (Israel) [http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=2]) Interestingly, and as is often the case, the Israeli press is more open as to the deceitful character of the official pretext - I guess ''hasbara'' is mainly for the US media. We'll have problems writing this up in a NPOV yet factually accurate manner ;) - User:Pir 15:06, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) I'll dig up some more info about PLO attacks on north ISrael prior to the invasion later - sorry no time now. -User:Pir 15:14, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Regarding Chomsky's reliablity in general, I recommend reading this [http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm], or if you have more time, this: [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/189355497X/qid=1098113068] . Chomsky is a POV warrior who would make most Wikipedia POV warriors look like rank amateurs by comparison. User:Jayjg 15:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Regarding "Chomsky's writings on the Arab-Israeli conflict [which] are a mass of distortions, misrepresentations and plain falsehoods" please see this: [http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/04-issue/bogdanor-4.htm]. User:Jayjg 17:04, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Sources for 700-800 deaths == ''Israeli figures, based on IDF intelligence, cite a figure of 700-800, a similar figure was released by Lebanese authorities and most Western sources.'' How similar are the figures? Which "Lebanese authorities"? And why should Western sources matter, unless they counted bodies? This needs to be fixed. --User:Style 15:32, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC) :AGREED. There is an unfortunate tendency to credit "Western" and Israeli sources as if they are above suspicion while "non-Western" accounts are dismissed as "unverifiable". See, for instance, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Operation_Days_of_Penitence_Fatalities User:Alberuni 16:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) :: Thanks for the pointer to VFD. User:Style 16:51, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC) :"Estimates of the number killed range from 460 according to the Lebanese police, to 700-800 calculated by Israeli intelligence. Palestinians claim 3,000 to 3,500 dead and call the action "genocide"." [http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_sabra_shatila.php] "The International Red Cross report of the incident indicates only 328 confirmed deaths, while more liberal estimates put the total at about 700. " [http://www.campustimes.org/news/2002/11/14/Opinions/Biological.Accuracy-324255.shtml] "More than 800 people were killed or went missing in a three-day killing spree by Lebanese Christian militiamen allowed into the camps by Israeli soldiers. Some estimates, however, put the death toll at 1,800. " [http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/lebanon020304_case.html] "857 Pal. & Leb. k. by Christian militia in Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in 1982." [http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm] "The exact death toll for the massacre remains unknown: estimates vary from 800 and 2 ,000." [http://www.mallat.com/articles/blanford%20csm.htm] "Estimates of the death toll range from 700 to 2,000. " [http://www.kurdistan.org/Clinton_in_Turkey/solomon.html] User:Jayjg 17:01, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) :: Palestine Facts is a mickey mouse, partisan website. It's claims will need to be verified. The Campus Times letter is just wrong. The IRC buried at least 1000. The ABC news article isn't an important source. Did ABC count bodies? The other sources state ranges, but not whether Israeli, Western or Lebanese (Christian or Muslim) sources actually made the claims. I need to know exactly who made the estimates, not just the range of estimates. Currently the article states that Lebanese and Western sources claim only 700-800 deaths. You have not sufficiently supported this. User:Style 17:24, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC) :::Apparently the IRC stated 328 confirmed deaths; why do you think they "buried at least 1000"? Also, the Lebanese police stated 460. Your opinions about the validity of other sources are interesting; thanks for sharing them. I don't see you subjecting the higher estimates to the same rigorous inspection or conditions. User:Jayjg 17:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::The book by Bayan Nuwayhed al-Hout I cited is IMHO, based on a very quick read, a fine, careful and scholarly work and probably is / will become the standard scholarly reference. Her minimum estimate of 1300 seems very solid (She gets 1390 from adding the names on many missing / deaths lists corroborated with other evidence and then eliminating thousands of duplicates, and then generously subtracts an estimated 90 based on the number of missing in various lists who later turned up.) The lower estimates' (ca. 500) unlikeliness is demonstrated, e.g. by taking their number of children killed ( <10%) and pointing out that many more children's corpses are shown in single photographs, provided in the book.--User:John Z 03:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ==United Nations General Assembly== We say "On December 16, 1982 the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide," but the source is secondary, maybe tertiary. [http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/Sabra.asp] Does anyone have a more solid citation for this? I've looked and can't find a chain of citation back to the resolution itself. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 06:26, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) :Funny, the [http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/faabb796990cf95a852560d9005240cf?OpenDocument UNGA Resolution A/RES/37/123(A-F)] is the first Google link if you simply highlight "December 16, 1982 the United Nations General Assembly" above and google it. User:HistoryBuffEr 06:39, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC) ::Yes, I already resolved this in the article I was really working on (with you), I didn't think to come back here and comment. It was because I'd added search terms and didn't coincide with them on the spelling of one, because I had followed ''your'' spelling. Anyway, once this is unprotected, let's get the better citation into the article. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 08:05, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) ===Once again cut=== The following seems to have been once again cut:~~~~ User:John E 10.39 (GMT) Nov 9.
I have no problem with that minor change. I will edit accordingly reinsert. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 20:09, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC) Looks like someone beat me to it. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 20:11, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
== Some Points and Questions to Ponder ==
1. The shooting of the Israeli ambassador in London was not, in itself, the "stated reason" for Israel's invasion. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. In the 11 months between the July 1981 Habib cease-fire and the June 1982 invasion, Israel recorded hundreds of terrorist attacks originating from PLO-controlled areas of southern Lebanon.
2. A "Phalangist militia numbering 1,500 was assembled."
Why then were only 150 sent into the camps? Why hold back 90% of the force? (I recall that reinforcements were necessary. Why? Were they readily available?)
3. These sentences in the article drip of POV:
"For two nights, from nightfall untill late into the night the Israeli military fired illuminating flares above the camps to assist the militia in their massacres"
"For the next 36 hours, the Phalangists massacred the inhabitants of the refugee camps with the assistance of the Israeli military."
"an Israeli tank crew saw several men, women and children being led to a stadium where they were to be interrogated or executed."
As if the IDF knowingly and premeditatedly was planning a massacre, a tank crew even knowing why some people were taken to a stadium.
4. "part of the camps that the phalangists controlled (they did not controll the entire camp-area)" [In this discussion page]
How can it be that after "two nights" or "36 hours" the entire camp was not under Phalangist control?
5. What was the population of the camps? How is it that in "36 hours" of alleged premeditated massacre, only hundreds (or even a few thousand) people were killed? Again, if this was the intent, why only send in 10% of the Phalangist force?
6. I think the reference to Damour is important for context. So is inclusion of the 1985 massacres at Shatila and Burj el Barajneh. (I believe Shatila was destroyed and never rebuilt.)
7. Lastly, I commend the effort to ascertain the number of dead, but two words of caution.
First, it is not atypical in such situations that many of those who are initially reported as "missing" turn up - alive. Needless to say, there is a high level of commotion and confusion. People are separated and a husband may report his wife missing even as the wife reports the husband missing.
Second, I recall (and believe that the Lebanese Police report states) that only a small number of dead were women and children, with a larger number being foreign PLO fighters.
(unsigned, but this is from Morley Harper)
:I'm not going to try to reply to all of the above, especially because I am headed to bed right now, but a few immediate responses:
:#On your point 5: Given the report that many of the dead were tortured before being killed, the length of time involved seems pretty much on the mark.
:#It seems to me that, on the general history of countries investigating themselves, that we can reasonably assume that the Kahan Commission report places a "lower bound" on what occurred. Similarly, ''Al-Ahram'''s reporting seems to me like a reasonable "upper bound", though I'd be open to suggestions of a different source for this purpose. I suppose one could argue that as the semi-official voice of the Egyptian government ''Al-Ahram'' might sometimes have reasons to go easy on Israel. Still, in a case like this, I doubt it. -- ~~~~
Regarding point 4. This camp-area consists of two parts, Sabra in the north and Shatila further south. South of Shatila there is a more open area. A fairly wide and open road marks the southern part om the camp. In the north Sabra blends into the streets om West-Beirut. During the massacre, for instance on friday, it was fairly easy to enter into the northern parts of Sabra. On friday the northern outskirts was not controlled by the Phalange. The situation on the southern outskirt of Shatila was quite different. The road ouside Shatila was desserted, but any phalangist (or for that matter IDF-soldiers in the area) could stop people from entering or leaving.
As far as I understand the phalangists entered the camps from the south. They were gathered at the airport which is also south of Shatila, but further in from the coast. They then probably moved up in a northerly direction as far as they reached during the time they spent in the camp. It is a densly populated area with lot of narrow side streets from the main street going south-norht. To control and clear up such an area therefore takes time and explains why they not controlled the entire camp-area - even after 36 hours.
~~~~ User:John E08.57 okt 28. (gmt)
== The parties responsible, however, cited much lower numbers. ==
"The parties responsible, however, cited much lower numbers."? This recent insertion makes no sense; neither the Lebanese police nor the Kahan commission were responsible for massacre. In any event, it's not up to Wikipedia to assign blame; rather, the sources should be listed, and the reader should draw his or her own conclusion. Also, the sources of the ICRC claim have been deleted, as have the sources cited by the Kahan commission. I'm going to restore the version which simply listed the various estimates and sources. User:Jayjg 15:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Apology ==
For mistakenly reverting the page to a User page. --User:Viriditas 03:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== flipping back and forth between two radically different versions ==
Right now, we have two sides flipping back and forth between two radically different versions. This is like the Monty Python "Argument sketch". Simple alternating contradiction is not going to move things forward. I strongly recommend that someone list the specific issues that are currently in contention so that some sort of focused discussion can occur. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 00:51, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
:Right. One version closely resembles the stable version that has existed here for months. The other is a radically new version, essentially a completely new POV re-write by HistoryBuffEr. This is his consistent pattern, and he should know by now that he needs to propose his changes in Talk: first to gain consensus before trying to force them on the page. And I agree, he should indeed list the specific issues in the existing article that he disagrees with so some sort of focussed discussion can occur. User:Jayjg 02:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::Who are you kidding? There's never consensus when Jayjg is involved. --User:Alberuni 04:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Summary of HistoryBuffEr's edits ==
* Intro:
Added "with assistance of Israel".
* Background
Just rephrased for readability and clarified claims. Main points:
:*Previous version (falsely) implied that 100,000 victims came about solely from infighting. Added Israeli invasions.
:*Attributed some obviously Israeli claims to Israel.
* Events
Mainly rephrased for readability and clarified claims. Main points:
:* Israel reoccupied Beirut after the PLO forces left Beirut as agreed breaching firm guarantees ...
:* Clarified relationship Israel-Phalangists.
:* Added claim that Israel's claim of presence of PLO in the camps was a cover story (cited reference.)
:* Added that "the Israel military actively assisted" Phalangists (which is obvious from facts presented).
:* Added Harbo's tidbit.
:* Added NPOV "X claimed" to several statements.
:* On number of victims: cited all claims presented, leading with (presumably neutral) ICRC.
:* Added the UNGA statement.
:* Added Kahan commision para.
* Israel's role in the massacre
:* Renamed from "Allegations against Israel". These are not mere allegations, this has been investigated and judgments made.
:* Replaced weasely and POV paraphrases of what the commision said with actual quotes.
:* Clarified the war-crimes lawsuit para to conform to facts.
User:HistoryBuffEr 02:48, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
:Nice try. Explain the specific changes you want to make, what you want to change to what, and provide evidence that they are valid. User:Jayjg 02:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::I can't decide which aphorism is more apt here: "Pot, kettle, black" or "He who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". --User:Alberuni 04:31, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg, are there ''any'' of HistoryBuffEr's edits that you consider acceptable? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 07:19, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
::I'm sure there are, but I can't even tell what edits he's made. His brief summary above gives almost no indication of exactly what was changed, and it's hardly fair to other editors to force them to try to decipher exactly which edits his comments apply to. As for the summaries, they're hardly acceptable or neutral; for example, what he refers to as "clarified" and "obvious" means "my own POV". As well, the ICRC claim, which he heavily relies on, comes from a tertiary source; a review of a book which allegedly claims the ICRC reported this - HistoryBuffEr refuses to even allow note of this, and this is the "presumably neutral" estimate which should lead? User:Jayjg 16:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Jmabel, out of curiousity, which of HistoryBuffEr's mainspace article edits do you consider acceptable? --User:Viriditas 14:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::I presume you mean on this page, rather than in general? To be honest, I'm still trying to work out exactly what he changed, I'm not willing to spend an hour doing so, and I find the above summary insufficient. When I make edits to controversial articles myself, I try to make them piecewise so that it's easy to reconstruct what I've changed. However, if in an article where I was editing, I were confronted with what HistoryBuffEr has done here, I would start from his version, let that be the baseline and make a series of edits each of which I was ready to defend. I did exactly that with MathKnight's edits at Left-wing politics; the result was eventually factored out into Post-September 11 anti-war movement, which admittedly is now NPOV disputed by someone who feels I didn't go far enough.
::Again, I haven't looked through this all, but it seems to me that on a lot of points there isn't really much difference between the two versions, but both sides keep reverting wholesale instead of starting from the other's version and challenging specific points. On a lot of points, the two sides seem to be reverting back and forth on wordings that make no difference at all. Nothing about this will ultimately strengthen the article. I stand by my remark above about the Monty Python analogy. And the matter has been made difficult by a shortage of citation from both sides. Again, harking back to my difference with MathKnight on Left-wing politics: part of how we worked this out to our mutual satisfaction is that we both cited like mad (including him translating one cited article from Hebrew).
::For some concrete examples where I think HistoryBuffEr has some valid points here (again, I'm hampered by his lack of citation, and I can't tell on either side what statements are being claimed to be actually false, vs. just saying "I can delete this because you haven't cited your source"):
::* "After the PLO forces left Beirut as agreed on September 1, Israel reoccupied Beirut, breaching firm guarantees given to the U.S., which had given written guarantees that it will protect civilians to the PLO." If true, this certainly belongs in the article. Without citation, I'm not sure what to say, but do you believe this to be false?
::* "Israeli army then confiscated the arms of all of the Muslim groups in West Beirut, but left the Christian Phalangist militias in East Beirut fully armed." Other than the grammar issue and the excess links, this seems important, if true.
::*
::Let me also remark that it seems seriously bizarre that HistoryBuffEr keeps ''removing'', "At one point, a militiaman's radioed question to Elie Hobeika about what to do with the women and children in the refugee camp was intercepted by an Israeli liaison officer who replied "This is the last time you're going to ask me a question like that; you know exactly what to do" as Phalangist troops could be heard laughing in the background[http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_17_06_01.txt])," which I would expect would be entirely amenable to him.
::Again, I haven't been much involved in this article except to talk about process. Again, my strong suggestion would be (1) Start from the other guy's version. (2) ''Strengthen'' it with citations and grammar improvements where you can: this is part of building a good encyclopedia. (3) Challenge him to produce specific citations on points you disbelieve (but recognize that plenty in Wikipedia is undercited, and don't remove material you believe to be probably true just because it is undercited and/or politically inconvenient to you). (4) Add your own material in numerous small doses rather than at a stroke, so that it is possible to understand the differences. (5) Cite, cite, cite on matters where someone disagrees with you: yes, I am saying to hold yourself to a higher standard than you demand from others.
::I could probably add to that, but I imagine this is enough. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 21:02, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
:::Your suggestions are reasonable, but I also don't have hours to try to figure out exactly what he's changed, especially when experience tells me it is pointless. For example, on Yasser Arafat, after he completely re-wrote the article, I went through section by section, NPOVing, restoring, challenging in Talk:, etc. However, he ignored all of this and simply reverted to his version. When Quadell came in as a neutral third party, and came up with a compromise version of Munich Massacre, which HistoryBuffEr agreed not to revert, HistoryBuffEr post facto decided that Quadell's changes were POV as well, and again reverted to his original version. When someone acts like this, what possible solution is there? Now Quadell is trying to achieve a compromise on this article, and I am perfectly happy to let him do all changes, and only propose or challenge in Talk:. However, HistoryBuffEr will not agree to this. Frankly, I'd make the same deal with you this article, but you'll not get agreement from HistoryBuffEr (and Alberuni) on that either. User:Jayjg 23:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
----
Jmabel, I did not remove the "radio" sentence, check your version (I have just reposted it to make sure.)
As for claims in my version, of course I did not invent any of them, but no one ever asked anything, they just keep reverting. Obviously, it is not sources they are concerned about but the preservation of their propaganda version.
User:HistoryBuffEr 02:53, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
== Jayjg uses Talk pages to obstruct NPOV edits in articles ==
Jayjg demands that all changes to "stable" articles (meaning articles with an established Zionist POV that suits him) be discussed in Talk. Then he engages in his usual tactic of tendentious sophistry and argumentative rhetoric to obstruct any changes that don't fit his extremist Zionist POV. He is incapable of engaging in honest dialogue, he refuses to accept facts that don't fit his POV, he complains when asked to cite references for his unsubstantiated POV pushing, and so he should be ignored and reverted. --User:Alberuni 17:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Thanks for sharing. If you have any suggestions about the article content itself, they would be most welcome. User:Jayjg 18:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Compromise attempt ==
Greetings all. I'm an outsider to all this, but I know many of the conflicting editors here, at least by reputation, and I'm hoping I can help to reach a compromise. I'm right now reviewing the two potential drafts. They're quite different, but they both seem to have merit. I know you guys aren't going to like each other, and that's fine with me, but my hope is that we can get this article NPOV and stable. My suggestion will come when I'm done poring over them. User:Quadell – User:Quadell (User_talk:Quadell) (User:Quadell/Request for assistance)~~~~ User:John E 11.24 Nov 18. 2004
I was just attempting to point out what I consider hypocracy and bias. I don't advocate the use of the word "terrorist" generally.
Jayig, do you mean Black September existed purely to murder and attack civilians (which may be true), or that the PLO exists purely to murder civilians (which I don't agree with)? User:Kingal86 18:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Would you ever advocate the use of the word "terrorist"? I meant the former, that Black September existed purely to attack and murder civilians in order to further political aims. User:Jayjg 18:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==HistoryBuffEr==
You've been asked to stop replacing this article and you have been repeatedly invited to work on a consensus version with Quadell, Jayjg, myself, and others. --User:Viriditas 03:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==A More Historical Version==
I've decided to help fix this article with factual and neutral info.
So far I have just tweaked obviously unclear or POV claims. But the subject deserves better: more facts to paint a clear background and the sequence of events.
I've posted pass 1. I'd be more than happy if someone informed and neutral jumped in to finish it.
Feel free to ask questions, post objections, add useful info, or tweak fuzzy parts, if there are any.
User:HistoryBuffEr
:Please see comment above. Please bring your POV edits here first for review by other editors. User:Jayjg 19:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
At first sight, I have to say HistoryBuffer's version looks better-researched (and notably longer!) on the one hand, and more POV on the other hand. How about actually discussing the problems with each version here? - User:Mustafaa 22:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As, I should point out, Quadell seems to have suggested all along. - User:Mustafaa 23:10, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==1st paragraph==
Let's see... First paragraph:
: The Sabra and Shatila massacre (or Sabra and Chatila massacre) was carried out in September 1982 by the Lebanese Christian militias with assistance of Israel in the then Israeli-occupied Beirut, Lebanon.
vs.
: The Sabra and Shatila massacre (or Sabra and Chatila massacre) was carried out in September 1982 by the Lebanese Christian militias in Beirut and Lebanon. Israel's culpability in the incident is a matter of hot dispute.
The first is correct, strictly speaking - the Israeli blockade of the camp did indeed have the effect of assisting in the massacre - but leaves a misleading impression that Israelis were doing the killing themselves. The second is true, but misleading insofar as it suggests that there is some possibility that Israel had nothing at all to do with the whole thing. How about:
: The Sabra and Shatila massacre (or Sabra and Chatila massacre) was carried out in September 1982 by Lebanese Christian militias in the then Israeli-occupied Beirut, Lebanon. The camps were externally surrounded by Israeli soldiers at the time, and the militias had been sent in by Israel; Israel's culpability in the incident is a matter of hot dispute.
Or does someone dispute those two points? - User:Mustafaa 23:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Looks good to me. User:Quadell – User:Quadell (User_talk:Quadell) (User:Quadell/Request for assistance)However, I note that the word "assisting" is not used in HistoryBuffer's revised version. - User:Mustafaa 17:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I should also add that, according to the refugees' testimony and by Haddad's own admission, elements of the South Lebanese Army were involved as well. - User:Mustafaa 17:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* I find this wholesale replacement of the article with HistoryBuffEr's version extremely disturbing. What is the "agreement in Talk:" you refer to? Did Quadell or I or Viriditas or anyone besides HB "agree" to this? User:Jayjg 20:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* I said that the Phalange wasn't sent in to massacre the Palestinians. User:Jayjg 20:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* The article itself should attempt to describe the events, not editorialize about them. For example, the article now says "For the next 36 to 48 hours, the Phalangists massacred the inhabitants of the refugee camps, while the Israeli military guarded the exits and provided logistical support." before actually describing the events in question. This is an editorial comment open to multiple interpretations which is not required by the text; rather, the text should simply list the events as they happened, and let the reader draw whatever conclusions are reasonable. User:Jayjg 20:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* The article is now full of dubious conflations and confusions. For example, it continues to confuse the SLA with the Phalange; Israel's relationship with each was quite different, and inserting unrelated sentences like "Israel had been training, arming, supplying and even uniforming the Christian South Lebanon Army since 1978" into a sentence about Gemayel and the Phala
Sabra and Shatila Massacre
The Sabra and Shatila massacre (or Sabra and Chatila massacre) was carried out in September 1982 by Lebanese Maronite Christian militias in then-Israeli-occupied Beirut, Lebanon, when Palestinian refugees were killed in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. The Maronite forces stood under the direct command of Elie Hobeika, who would later become a longtime Lebanon parliament member and in the 1990s also a cabinet minister. The camps were externally surrounded by Israeli soldiers throughout the incident, and the militias had been sent in by Israel to find PLO members. However, Israel's culpability in the killings is hotly disputed, and Israel has denied direct responsibility, while finding certain Israelis, among them Ariel Sharon, indirectly personally responsible. == Background == From 1975 to 1990, Lebanon was involved in a Lebanese Civil War between groups in competing alliances with neighboring countries. The Lebanese Maronite Christians, led by the Phalangist party and militia, were allied initially with Syria then with Israel, which provided them with arms and training to fight against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) faction; other factions were allied with Syria, Iran, and other states of the region. In addition, Israel had been training, arming, supplying and uniforming the Christian South Lebanon Army, led by Saad Haddad, since 1978. Infighting and massacres between these groups claimed several thousands of victims; notable massacres in this period included the Karantina Massacre (January 1976) by Phalangists against Palestinian refugees, Damour Massacre (January 1976) by the PLO against Maronites and the Tel el-Zaatar Massacre (August 1976) by Phalangists against Palestinian refugees. The two major invasions of Lebanon by Israel (in 1978 and 1982), claimed around 20,000 lives, mostly Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. The total death toll in Lebanon for the whole civil war period was up to 100,000 victims. ([http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm]) Sabra is the name of a poor neighborhood in the southern outskirts of West Beirut, which is adjacent to the Shatila UNRWA refugee camp set up for Palestinian refugees in 1949. Over the years the populations of the two areas became ever more mingled, and the loose terminology "Sabra and Shatila camps" has become usual. Their populations had been swelled by Palestinians and Shiites from the south fleeing the war. The PLO had been using southern Lebanon as a base for attacks on Israel, and Israel had in turn been bombing positions in southern Lebanon. The attempted assassination of Israeli Ambassador Shlomo Argov in London on June 4 provided a ''casus belli'' (although it ultimately turned out to be by an group hostile to the PLO, Abu Nidal) and turned the mutual hostilities into full-scale war; on June 6, 1982, Israel 1982 Invasion of Lebanon with 60,000 troops. Two months later, under a United States-sponsored cease-fire agreement signed in late August, the PLO agreed to leave Lebanon under international supervision, and Israel agreed not to advance further into Beirut and to guarantee the security of Palestinian civilians left behind in the refugee camps. On August 23, 1982, Bachir Gemayel, who was very popular among Maronites, was elected List of Presidents of Lebanon by the National Assembly. Israel had relied on Gemayel and his forces as a counterbalance to the PLO. On September 1, the evacuation of the PLO fighters from Beirut was completed. Two days later, Israel deployed its armed forces around the refugee camps; this was a clear breach of the cease-fire agreement, but Israel was not asked to withdraw by the supervising forces, the international forces which were overseeing the PLO withdrawal and guaranteeing the safety of the Palestinian refugees left on September 11, following the early withdrawal of U.S. forces. The next day Ariel Sharon, Israeli Defense Minister at the time, claimed that 2,000 PLO fighters had remained in Beirut. This claim was disputed by Palestinians. The Israeli Premier Menachem Begin brought Gemayel to Nahariya and strongly urged him to sign a peace treaty with Israel. According to some sources ([http://wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/sab3-f25_prn.shtml]), he also demanded acceptance of a military presence in southern Lebanon under control of Major Saad Haddad (a supporter of Israel), and action from Gemayel to move on the Palestinian fighters Israel claimed had remained hidden in refugee camps including Sabra and Shatila. However, the Phalangists, who were previously united as reliable Israeli allies were now split because of developing alliances with Syria, which opposed Israel. Gemayel now had to balance interests of many competing factions within Lebanon. In addition, according to several eyewitness accounts, he personally took offense at what he saw as Begin's high-handed attitude towards him. He refused Israel's demands to sign the treaty or to authorize operations in the refugee camps. On September 14, 1982, Gemayel was assassinated in a massive explosion which demolished his headquarters. The Palestinian and Muslim leaders denied any responsibility. However, Ariel Sharon blamed the assassination on Palestinians, which inflamed the animosity of Phalangists towards Palestinians. The next day, on September 15, the Israeli army reoccupied West Beirut, killing 88 people and wounding 254. This Israeli action breached its agreement with the United States not to occupy West Beirut ([http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_17_06_01.txt]); the US had also given written guarantees that it would ensure protection of the Muslims of West Beirut. Israel's occupation also violated its peace agreements with Muslim forces in Beirut and with Syria. Menachem Begin justified the occupation as "necessary to prevent acts of revenge by the Christians against the Palestinians” and to "maintain order and stability after Gemayel’s assassination". However, several days later, Ariel Sharon told the Knesset, Israel’s parliament: “Our entry into West Beirut was in order to make war against the infrastructure left by the terrorists”. The Israeli army then disarmed, as far as they were able, non-pro-Israeli militias and civilians in West Beirut, while leaving the Christian Phalangist militias in East Beirut fully armed. == Events == Ariel Sharon then invited Lebanese Phalangist militia units, trained and equipped by Israel, to enter the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps to “clean out the terrorists". Under the Israeli plan, Israeli soldiers would control the perimeters of the refugee camps and provide logistical support while the Phalangists would enter the camps, find the PLO fighters and hand them over to Israeli forces. However, ultimately no persons were handed over to Israeli forces, there was no fighting and no weapons were reported to be found in the camps. Documents presented in the Belgian war-crimes lawsuit against Ariel Sharon allegedly show that the claim about presence of the PLO fighters in the camps was a cover story prepared by Israel. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/1975849.stm] Sharon's instructions to the Phalangists emphasized that the Israeli military was in command of all the forces in the area. The Israeli military had completely surrounded and sealed off the camps and set up observation posts on the roofs of nearby tall buildings on September 15. The next day Israel announced that it controlled all key points in Beirut. The Israeli military met throughout the day with top Phalangist leaders to arrange the details of the operation. For the next two nights, from nightfall until late into the night the Israeli military fired illuminating flares above the camps to assist the militia. On the evening of September 16, 1982 the Phalangist militia, under the command of Elie Hobeika, entered the camps. For the next 36 to 48 hours, the Phalangists massacred the inhabitants of the refugee camps, while the Israeli military guarded the exits and continued to provide flares by night. A unit of 150 Phalangists (including some Haddad fighters, according to Saad Haddad as quoted by Robert Fisk) was assembled at 4:00 p.m. These militiamen armed with guns, knives and hatchets entered the camps at 6:00 p.m. A Phalangist officer reported 300 killings, including civilians, to the Israeli command post at 8:00 p.m., and further reports of these killings followed through the night. Some of these reports were forwarded to the Israeli government in Tel Aviv and were seen by a number of Israel's senior officials. At one point, a militiaman's radioed question to his commander Hobeika about what to do with the women and children in the refugee camp was overheard by an Israeli officer, who heard Hobeika reply that "This is the last time you're going to ask me a question like that; you know exactly what to do". Phalangist troops could be heard laughing in the background [http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_17_06_01.txt]. The Israeli officer reported this to his superior General Amos Yaron, who warned Hobeika against hurting civilians but took no further action. Lt. Avi Grabowsky was cited by the Kahan Commission as having seen (on that Friday) the murder of five women and children. He spoke to his battalion commander about it; he replied "We know, it's not to our liking, and don't interfere." Israeli soldiers surrounding the camps turned back refugees fleeing the massacre, as filmed by a Visnews cameraman. Phalangist militia troops regularly returned to Israeli units and were given food, water and ammunition throughout the massacre. Later in the afternoon, a meeting was held between the Israeli Chief of Staff and the Phalangist staff. According to the Kahan Commission's report (based on a Mossad agent's report), the Chief of Staff concluded that the Phalange should "continue action, mopping up the empty camps south of Fakahani until tomorrow at 5:00 a.m., at which time they must stop their action due to American pressure." He claimed that he had "no feeling that something irregular had occurred or was about to occur in the camps." At this meeting, he also agreed to provide the militia with a tractor, supposedly to demolish buildings. On Friday, September 16, while the camps still were sealed off, a few independent observers managed to enter. Among them were a Norwegian journalist and a Norwegian diplomat, who observed Phalangists during their cleanup operations, removing dead bodies from destroyed houses in the Shatila camp". [Harbo, 1982] The Phalangists did not exit the camps at 5:00 a.m. on Saturday as ordered. They forced the remaining survivors to march out of the camps, randomly killing individuals, and sending others to the stadium for interrogations; this went on for the entire day. The militia finally left the camps at 8:00 a.m. on September 18. The first foreign journalists allowed into the camps at 9:00 a.m. found hundreds of bodies scattered about the camp, many of them mutilated. The first official news of the massacre was broadcast around noon. The number of victims of the massacre is disputed. It is thought that three quarters of the victims were Palestinians, the rest Lebanese. Here follow the main claims ordered by number of deaths: *A letter from the head of the Red Cross delegation to the Lebanese Minister of Defense, cited in the Kahan Commission report as "exhibit 153", stated that Red Cross representatives had counted 328 bodies; but the commission noted that "this figure, however, does not include all the bodies..." * The Kahan Commission said that, according to "a document which reached us (exhibit 151), the total number of victims whose bodies were found from 18.9.82 to 30.9.82 is 460", claiming that this figure consists of "the dead counted by the Lebanese Red Cross, the International Red Cross, the Lebanese Civil Defense, the medical corps of the Lebanese army, and by relatives of the victims." * Israeli figures, based on IDF intelligence, cite a figure of 700–800. In the Kahan Commission's view, "this may well be the number most closely corresponding with reality." * According to the BBC, "at least 800" Palestinians died[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1935198.stm]. * Bayan Nuwayhed al-Hout in her Sabra And Shatila: September 1982 (Pluto, 2004) gives a minimum consisting of 1,300 named victims based on detailed comparison of 17 victim lists and other supporting evidence, and estimates an even higher total * Robert Fisk, one of the first journalists to visit the scene, quotes (without endorsing) unnamed Phalangist officers as saying "that 2,000 'terrorists' - women as well as men - had been killed in Chatila." * According to several sources, including an Al-Jazeera report and Prof. Ahmad Tall, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) ultimately counted 2,750 victims: 1,500 at the time, a further 900 by September 22, and an extra 350 on September 23 as more bodies were uncovered.[http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B26B8CE1-49E1-47FF-9ED5-8E1AE1305CC4.htm][http://www.allaboutpalestine.com/sabrashatillapics.html] * Many Palestinians claim between 3,000 and 3,500.[http://www.palestinehistory.com/mass05.htm] The massacre provoked outrage around the world. On December 16, 1982 the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. [http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/faabb796990cf95a852560d9005240cf?OpenDocument] == Israel's role in the massacre== In its initial statements, the Israeli government initially declared that those critics who regarded the IDF as having responsibility for the events at Sabra and Shatila were guilty of "a blood libel against the Jewish state and its Government." However, as the news of the massacre spread around the world, the controversy grew, and on September 25, 300,000 Israelis demonstrated in Tel Aviv demanding answers. On September 28, the Israeli Government resolved to establish a Commission of Inquiry, which was led by former Supreme Justice Kahan. The report included evidence from Israeli army personnel, as well as political figures and Phalangist officers. In the report, published in the spring of 1983, the Kahan Commission stated that there was no evidence that Israeli units took direct part in the massacre and that it was the "direct responsibility of Phalangists". However, the Commission recorded that Israeli military personnel was aware that a massacre was in progress without taking serious steps to stop it, and that reports of a massacre in progress were made to senior Israeli officers and even to an Israeli cabinet minister; it therefore regarded Israel as bearing part of the "indirect responsibility". Among those it considered to bear a part of this "indirect responsibility", the commission found that Ariel Sharon bore "personal responsibility" and recommended his dismissal from the post of Defense Minister; it also recommended the dismissal of Director of Military Intelligence Yehoshua Saguy, and the effective demotion of Division Commander Amos Yaron for at least three years. These recommendations were carried out. Even though the Kahan Commission concluded that Sharon should not hold public office again, he would later become Prime Minister of Israel [http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/Sabra.asp]. Critics of the commission report pointed to the fact that Israel was investigating itself and argued the report amounted to a whitewash; for instance, Noam Chomsky says: : "The Kahan Commission report was a shameful whitewash; see ''Fateful Triangle'', chapter 6, and Shimon Lehrer, ''Ha'ikar Hehaser'' ("The Missing Crucial-Point"; Amit, Jerusalem, 1983). In a close critical analysis of the events and the Kahan Commission report, Lehrer shows that its conclusions were untenable and argues that the Defense Minister and Chief of Staff should have faced 20-year jail sentences for premeditated murder under Israeli law. While sharply criticized in Israel, in the U.S. the Kahan Commission report was depicted, without analysis, as most impressive or even approaching the sublime.''"[http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c06-s06.html] Some commentators, such as Noam Chomsky and Robert Fisk, have suggested that Israel could have prevented the massacre. Furthermore, they have doubted that there were any PLO members in the camps, because (1) the Kahan Commission claim that the Israeli army sent only 150 Phalangists to fight what it said was 2,000 PLO members would be an unrealistic and poor military decision and (2) the Phalangists suffered only two casualties, an improbable outcome of a supposedly 36-hour battle of 150 militants with 2,000 experienced PLO soldiers [FT]. Defenders of Israel point out that Israel never claimed all of the PLO members (as opposed to Fatah militants) were armed or tried to organize a defense. Also, on several previous occasions, the Phalangists were used by the Israeli army to filter out PLO members from the rest of the Lebanese population. They claim that on those other occasions, the conduct of Phalangists was good. Israel points out that the Phalangist field commander, Elie Hobeika, was at that time already maintaining contacts with Syria (he openly switched allegiance to Syria at a later date), suggesting that he may have orchestrated the massacres as a political provocation against his Israeli allies. Finally, Israel argues that it never issued an order (on this occasion or any other) that would authorize the killing of unarmed civilians. However, Israel had given a written commitment that it would protect Palestinian civilians (as was its duty as an occupying power under international law), yet Israel did nothing to protect the civilians when it became aware of the massacre. ==Sabra and Shatila After the Israeli Invasion== Israel began to leave Beirut shortly after the news of the massacre broke. The protection of the camps was entrusted to Italy. Following attacks on the peacekeepers, Italy left Lebanon. The safety of the camps was then entrusted to the Amal militia. In 1985, Amal turned on the Palestinians and the PLO. Beginning that year, Amal began a three year siege of Sabra and Shatila. By the end of the siege, and some intra-Palestinian fighting, only seven families were left alive in the camps. (See War of the Camps) == Belgian court proceedings == After Sharon's 2001 election to the post of Prime Minister of Israel, a lawsuit was filed by relatives of the victims of the massacre in Belgium alleging his personal responsibility for the massacres, under a 1993 law first used against people implicated in the Rwandan Genocide. The Belgian Supreme Court ruled on February 12, 2003, that Sharon (and others involved, such as Israeli General Yaron) could be indicted under this accusation. Israel claimed that the lawsuit was initiated for political reasons. As another case was filed in Belgium alleging responsibility of the former United States President George H. W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell for war-crimes in the first Iraq War. The U.S. questioned the jurisdiction of Belgian courts to try war crimes committed elsewhere, asked European allies to pressure Belgium and threatened to move NATO headquarters from Belgium. Additionally, a variety of cases against other world leaders, such as Fidel Castro, Augusto Pinochet, and Yasser Arafat, were filed in Belgian courts, causing some diplomatic difficulties. Eventually, Belgium amended its law to require that human rights complaints could only be filed if the victim or suspect was a Belgian citizen or long-term resident at the time of the alleged crime. The Belgian Parliament also guaranteed diplomatic immunity for world leaders and other government officials visiting the country. Elie Hobeika, the Phalangist commander at the time of the massacre never stood trial and held a post of a minister in Lebanese government in the 1990s. He was assassinated by a car bomb in Beirut on January 24, 2002, as he was preparing to testify in Sharon's trial [http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/460.cfm]. On September 24 2003, Belgium's highest court dismissed the war crimes complaints against Ariel Sharon, ruling there was no longer a legal basis for the lawsuit. ==References== * * Joel Campagna (April 2002). [http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/460.cfm The Usual Suspects]. ''World Press Review'' 49 (4). Web journal article, retrieved December 4, 2004. * Noam Chomsky (1989). ''[http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c06-s06.html Necessary Illusions: Thought control in democratic societies]''. South End Press. ISBN 0-89-608366-7. * Amal Hamdan (September 16, 2003). [http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B26B8CE1-49E1-47FF-9ED5-8E1AE1305CC4.htm Remembering Sabra and Shatila]. ''Aljazeera''. Retrieved December 4, 2004. * General Assembly United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (December 16, 1982). ''[http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/faabb796990cf95a852560d9005240cf?OpenDocument 37/123. The situation in the Middle East]''. Retrieved December 4, 2004. * John Harbo (September 20, 1982). Aftenposten. Middle East correspondent Harbo was also quoted with the same information on ABC News "Close up, Beirut Massacres", broadcast January 7, 1983. * Barnaby Mason (April 17, 2002). [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1935198.stm Analysis: 'War crimes' on West Bank]. ''BBC World News''. Retrieved December 4, 2004. * [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/1975849.stm New 'evidence' in Sharon trial] (May 8, 2002). ''BBC World News''. Retrieved December 4, 2004. * Jean Shaoul (February 25, 2002). [http://wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/sab3-f25_prn.shtml Sharon’s war crimes in Lebanon: the record]. ''World Socialist Web Site''. Retrieved December 4, 2004. * Ahmad Tamal (no date). [http://www.allaboutpalestine.com/sabrashatillapics.html Sabra and Shatila]. ''[http://www.allaboutpalestine.com/index.shtml All About Palestine]''. Retrieved December 4, 2004. * Chris Tolworthy (March 2002). [http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/Sabra.asp Sabra and Shatila massacres -- why do we ignore them?]. ''[http://www.globalissues.org Global Issues]''. Retrieved December 4, 2004. * [http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_17_06_01.txt Transcript of "The Accused"] (June 17, 2001). ''BBC World News'' (BBC-1). Retrieved December 4, 2004. *:Note: the BBC has a disclaimer that says "THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT: BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MISHEARING AND THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS, THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY." * Matthew White (update July 2004). [http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm Secondary Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century]. Retrieved December 4, 2004. * Shashaa, Esam (no date). [http://www.palestinehistory.com/mass05.htm The massacre of Sabra and Shatila Camps - 16.09.1982]. Retrieved December 4, 2004. ==See Also== *Ariel Sharon *Atrocities *List of massacres *State Terrorism *Laws of war *International law *Arab-Israeli conflict ==External links== * [http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/17/newsid_2519000/2519637.stm BBC News archive and video] * [http://www.littleredbutton.com/sabra_shatila/ Sabra Shatila Massacre Photographs, 1982] * [http://www.littleredbutton.com/lebanon/ Eyewitness Lebanon] An on-line book, with eyewitness accounts and photos from 91 international correspondents. * [http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/jun02herman.html Ariel Sharon, From Sabra/Shatila to Jenin: Another U.S.-approved “good genocidist” free to kill] * [http://www.counterpunch.org/heller09212004.html Sabra-Shatila, 22 Years Later: Reagan and the Killing Fields of Lebanon] * [http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/kahan.html Kahan Commission of Inquiry] – Israel's official investigation into the massacre. * [http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1982-1984/104%20Report%20of%20the%20Commission%20of%20Inquiry%20into%20the%20e Report of the Kahan Commission] - hosted by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. * [http://www.free-lebanon.com/News/Documents_of_Note/DOC_chap8/doc_chap8.html DOC] Lebanese account claiming Sharon's 100% innocence * [http://www.aceviper.net/members/cobra/07.html Cobra] Hobeika & Sabra Shatilah (written by Hobeika's bodyguard) * [http://www.geocities.com/sharonisinnocent Innocent Sharon] Documentation * [http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/Witnesses/witnesses.html Witnesses] * [http://www.gotc.org/st16.7.1.htm Statement by Guardians of the Ceder], a Lebanese-Christian nationalist group, expressing its regret over the unilaterality of the investigation in Belgium. Terrorist incidents Lebanese history Israeli history Massacres War crimes 1982 ms:Penyembelihan Sabra dan Shatila
Sabra and Shatila Massacre
==Hebrew arabs?== There are Eye Witness accounts that the supposed Maronite Christians on the ground during this massacre spoke fluent Hebrew and a little English, and where unable to speak Arabic or Aramaic. One Such Eye-Witness is Dr. Swee Chai Ang, who was a witness in the Kahan Commission of inquiry. It's also not stated that those who tried to escape the camp were denied exit from the IDF (who were, supposedly, there for their protection). --User:Irishpunktom 13:03, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) ---- Uri asks why I deleted "anarchist" from the description of Noam Chomsky here, and also put the word back. Two points: (1) Whether Chomsky is an anarchist (as an aside, he describes himself as a "libertarian socialist" and draws an equivalence with anarchism) is irrelevant to the quote given; (2) The term "anarchist" is a complex and usually misinterpreted label, and often applied as a means of discrediting a speaker, in much the same way as labels are applied in irrelevant contexts (eg "Bob the satanist says Coca Cola is better than Pepsi" or "Fred the communist says ". : Chomsky has been known for a last time for a series of political views, that are most often classified as "anarchist". His writings stem out of his political philosophy; therefore it is important to mention his political platform to describe them properly. Given the general bias in the ME pages of Wiki, I believe that (2) is the reason for its inclusion here. Certainly it adds nothing to the quote presented, in which case one does have to ask the questions: Why mention it? If the deleted adjective is not intended to convey some meaning, why re-place it after deletion? And, finally, if the meaning is not (2), above, then it must be (1), in which case: What does this add to the quote from Chomsky which is so important it needs stating and preserving by calling him an "anarchist"? : As I said earlier, the question of Chomsky's being an anarchist is of importance here. There's an important difference between the examples you brought above and the question with Chomsky: Bob's religious and Fred's political views are irrelevant to their position with regard to Pepsi; on the other hand it is obvious that Chomsky's political views have an influence on his historical analysis. --User:Uriyan This is not a trivial point - it is merely a subtle aspect of the more general bias visible throughout Wiki's middle east pages. ---- Call him leftist, then. It covers both socialism and anarchism. (I haven't followed the debate, so I don't know if his political inclinations are relevant or not.) -- GayCom : Chomsky's political views are not simply leftists; they are widely considered extreme leftist; now I don't care whether it's anarchist or not, but I think it would be against the truth to describe him as a moderate (by default), whereas he's really a radical. --User:Uriyan ---- What's the deal with the spelling? I have only seen "Shatila." Could someone explain (in the article) why there are two spellings (or transliterations), and why one is prefered over the other? User:Slrubenstein : "Shatila" is a more faithful transcription; the Arabic original does not have a shadda over the [l] so it's short. "Chatila" is merely the French rendition of the same name. --User:Uriyan Without getting into the politics, can we then agree to at least change the spelling from French to English? User:Danny : I agree. --User:Uriyan ::ditto User:Slrubenstein ---- :The report included the evidence of Israeli army personnel, as well as political figures and Phalange officers. In the report, published in the spring of 1983, the Commission stated that there was no evidence that Israeli units took part in the massacre or were even were aware of it. The last part is not true. The Kahan commission recorded lots of evidence that Israeli forces and even some Israeli politicians knew of the massacre while it was still going on. When I get a chance I'll quote from the report itself. -- bdm ---- Could someone add that the Belgian case has recently been withdrawn following a law change (one of the parties involved should actually be related to Belgium in some way, and furthermore the complaint should not target any foreign leader in exercise). I didn't find the original news report but here are two alternative sources: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indictsharon/message/137 http://www.truthnews.net/world/2003090075.htm ---- This article is *very* POV. I will be putting in some edits when I have time, but for now, I will restore some of the links that were removed by vandals (pointing to Chomsky and anti-Sharon sites... go figure...). Oh, and Chomsky is *NOT* a "radical leftist" (which implies Communist), he is a social Anarchist. Anarchism is about as diammetrically opposed to Communism as you can get. Considering that the vast majority of the world is overwhelmingly opposed to US/Israeli militarism and aggression, I don't think it is anywhere near accurate to describe Chomsky's views as "radical". --User:Gatto 19:40, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) :Hmm, without getting into the "leftist" issue, if Chomsky (and indeed "social Anarchism") isn't "radical" then it is hard to imagine who or what is. In any event, please read from the top of this Edit page down, the issues of Chomsky's politics and radicalism have already been discussed. User:Jayjg 03:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) ---- The sentence "While the dead included innocent civilians, many if not most were armed fighters" gives the impression that the Palestinian casualties were largely combatants. How can this be consistent with the facts stated further down the article, that the massacre was committed by just 150 Phalangists, who suffered only two casualties? : Indeed. I have deleted: "While the dead included innocent civilians, many if not most were armed fighters." as it is simply untrue and there is not one shred of evidence to support the claim. As has been mentioned, this article is highly POV and needs re-writing. I am unsure whether Robert Fisk is a radical liberal, certainly people in the UK don't use that political description, it's a N. American term which is unused in Britain. A more important point, however, is that the assumption appears to be that the politics of individuals either validates or invalidates their words. In a serious article such notions, surely, have no place. Is everyone to be given a politcal label? :: It should also be pointed out that Fisk was one of a group of 3 journalists who were the first to enter the camps, in fact not all the Phalange had, at that point, moved out. ::: It should also be pointed out that the SLA were also involved. User: John Ball 30/07/04 9:30' Hi Jayjg. I see that You have removed my remark Pirs replay and my response to him from this page and wonder why. I thought the meaning with this page was to communicate regarding the articles or am I wrong? John :Hi John. Actually, I've just moved the current conversation down to the bottom of the page, where it's easier to find. I also had some trouble trying to locate this (your latest) comment and respond to it. I'll leave this conversation here, but it makes things much easier if you put new conversation at the bottom of the page. Also, I strongly recommend getting a userid; they're free. User:Jayjg 07:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==Links== I think that the link: Damour (http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/hobeika_damour/hobeika_damour.html) Damour massacre is unnecessary as it does not relate directly to the article, perhaps an article on the Damour Massacre itself is necessary though? Also this link: From Israel to Damascus (http://www.israeltodamascus.com/index.htm) – a book written by Elie Hobeika's bodyguard that includes the description of how Hobeika carried out the massacre. Seems to be not working, I would like to delete these, any objections? Please advise. Joseph E. Saad (August 5th, 2004) :Thanks for noticing that, I've fixed the links. User:Jayjg 21:54, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::No problem you are welcome, but why the Damour massacre link, I am puzzled? - Joseph E. Saad (August 5th, 2004) :::I'm not sure, but I believe it was put in there as an example of a similar massacre in Lebanon during the same timeframe, and perhaps as contributing to the Phalangist rationale for the Sabra and Shatila Massacre. User:Jayjg 01:44, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::::Well I suspect, but have no proof, that it was put there to diminish the tragedy that was this massacre, by showing the PLO or Palestinians in a bad light. In any case I will leave it, but still feel quite strongly that it should be moved to a better spot, namely an article that deals with that particular massacre. I guess what does it matter anyway? There have been so many massacres, and killings in the Middle East, what a legacy that will be left for the future generations. Thanks for the input, and cooperation.User:Joseph E. Saad 08:23, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC) ---- "At one time it was a radio question aimed at Elie Hobeika asking what to do with the women and children and intercepted by an Israeli liaison officer (he replied "This is the last time you're going to ask me a question like that, you know exactly what to do", Phalange troops at the spot laughing having heard that)" Could someone provide me a s source for this communictions? :A bit of googling reveals that it may be from a transcript of the BBC Panorama programme "The accused": [http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_17_06_01.txt] "''The Israelis had a forward command post about 200 metres away which overlooked the camps. There were Phalangists stationed on the roof with the Israelis. It was around this time, 7 o'clock on Thursday evening that an Israeli officer stationed on the roof overheard a deeply troubling conversation. He was standing close to Elie Hobeika, the Leader of the Phalange operation. A soldier inside the camps came on the radio. He told Hobeika he was holding 50 women and children. What should he do with them? Hobeika replied "That's the last time you're going to ask me a question like that. You know exactly what to do". There was raucous laughter from the other Phalangists. The Israeli officer reported this to his superior, General Amos Yuron. There would be more worrying reports to the Yuron, but beyond warning Elie Hobeika not to harm civilians the General took no further action that night. Ariel Sharon was now at a cabinet meeting in Jerusalem. Ministers heard the Phalange were now in the camps. Deputy Prime Minister David Levy was deeply troubled.''" - User:Pir 19:36, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) ==Norwegian observers== I've tried to add some information regarding events in Sabra and Shatila-story. Jayjg seems to be very eager to have them removed and I wonder why. I'm new to Wikipedia so the editing might not be according to the rules and in that case I'd appreciate any advice. John (user 80.91.33.33) 0410.04. 09.20 gmt :Hi John, there's nothing wrong with your editing, but this article touches a subject that is very sensitive for some. Maybe you could provide a source for the information you added, and the names of the journalist and diplomat? - User:Pir 12:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) Hi Pir. My name is John Harbo and I worked as a correspondent for a Norwegian paper in Beirut at the time, so I am the source for the information given. I was myself in the camp on friday, on time alone and the other together with charge d'affares Gunnar Flakstad at the Norwegian embassy. As You see from what I added the observations we did in the camps were limited, but I added it because it supplements the information given later in the article that the first journalists entered the camps on saturday morning. In addition at least one american journalist entered the camp friday afternoon. I'll try to check his name and give it to You. This information can be checked by looking at the chapter "Direct responsibility" in The Kahane report. regards John 04.10.04 14.50 :Hi John. As pir says, the article is controversial at best, so any additions need to be attributed. Also, it would be preferable if you got yourself a User name. User:Jayjg 18:53, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) Hi Jayjg. Sorry. I didn't check at the bottom. Thought the page were divided into different subjects so that here was one discussion running regarding the events and another on the links to this article. Have also got a user id as You recomended. And by the way: the american journalist that also observed the Phalangists on friday was Loren Jenkins of The Washington Post. John E :Great. Now, what would you like to include, and why is it relevant? Please note that your existing edit does not mesh well with the existing text, and in particular contradicts some of it. Including the names of the journalists etc. would be helpful. Please bring the text here for discussion first before including it. Also, please sign your edits with four tilde signs like this:
''The PLO had been using Lebanon as a staging grounds for attacks on Israel's northern border, and on that pretext Israel justified its invasion of southern Lebanon on June 6, 1982. '' :::::::::::::vs. ''The PLO had been using Lebanon as a staging grounds for attacks on Israel's northern border, and in response Israel invaded southern Lebanon on June 6, 1982.'' Noam Chomsky writes in Fateful Triangle that the actual reason/pretext for the invasion of Lebanon given at the time was the assassination attempt against Israeli ambassador Shlomo Argov in London by Abu Nidal. Abu Nidal was a rival to the PLO at that time, in fact he had been condemned to death by the PLO ; at the trial of the three members of the Abu Nidal team, the commander was later found to be an Iraqi secret service agent.
Also, during the time preceding the invasion, there were apparently almost no PLO attacks on Israel (two if I remember well). I can look up some references if you like. - User:Pir 23:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) :That would be helpful, pir. Noam Chomsky is an unreliable source about everything except linguistics. User:Jayjg 14:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::Another gratuitous and unsubstantiated slap against the credibility Noam Chomsky. Is this opinion based on disagreements with his anti-Zionist politics or is it just anti-semitism? In any case, I suspect that he is a more reliable source than a Wikipedian editor. User:Alberuni 14:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::Let's maintain a collegial tone please. - User:Pir 15:11, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::I'm dismayed; I thought we were starting on a new footing, Alberuni. Did our discussion yesterday mean nothing? User:Jayjg 15:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::Oh, was that too antagonistic? You should be free to slander Noam Chomsky and dismiss authors whom you dislike and no one should dispute your baseless accusations. But at least we will have a collegial atmosphere. User:Alberuni 16:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::::Yes, of course it was too antagonistic; good faith would recognize that. Dismissing Chomsky as an unreliable source is not the same thing as attacking you. See more below. User:Jayjg 17:04, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::Regarding the pretext for invasion, there are many sources that contend that Israel's massive invasion of Lebanon (and other military activities) were/are driven more by Israel's insatiable thirst for water (much like America's insatiable thirst for oil drives military policy) and desire to control Litani River water resources, not by sporadic and militarily ineffective provocations of PLO militants. [http://web.macam.ac.il/~arnon/Int-ME/water/THE%20LITANI%20RIVER.htm] [http://www.diak.org/water/CES%20Hydrostrategic%20Territory%20in%20the%20Jordan%20Basin%20Water,%20War,.htm] [http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=123&aid=166&pg=1] [http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/waterwars.htm] User:Alberuni 14:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::Alberuni, I think you are conflagrating the official pretext with the real reasons driving the war. Let's not go into the "real reasons" stuff at this point, otherwise we'll get into a huge edit conflict (it would be more appropriate to discuss it in the Operation Peace for Galilee article anyway). Let's just deal with the pretext for now. - User:Pir 15:11, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::::Very wise, pir. "Real reasons" discussions aka Conspiracy theory discussions, tend to get heated. User:Jayjg 15:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::::Which is why the article should describe the "reason" as the "stated reason" the "purported reason" the "ostensible reason": or the "pretext" -- because it wasn't the real reason. User:Alberuni 16:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::::::"Stated reason" is the only NPOV descriptor of that lot. "Pretext", "purported", and "ostensible" all imply that the "real" reason was something else. User:Jayjg 17:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) Chomsky appears to be quite reliable in this case at least. Although Fateful Triangle has only a couple of general refernces at this point (how the start of the invasion was reported in the US press), a quick google search reveals that this version of the events is widely accepted: * Chomsky : "''Having failed to elicit the desired PLO reaction, Israel simply manufactured a pretext for its long-planned invasion of June 1982, claiming that it was in retaliation for an attempt to assassinate the Israeli Ambassador to London; the attempt, as Israel was aware, was carried out by the terrorist Abu Nidal organization that had been at war with the PLO for years and did not so much as have an office in Lebanon.''"[http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199309--.htm] *"''[Abu Nidal's] most famous attack on an Israeli came in June 1982, when three gunmen seriously wounded then-ambassador Shlomo Argov in London, giving Menachem Begin's government the excuse it needed to implement then-defense minster Ariel Sharon's plan to invade Lebanon and push the PLO out of Beirut. Told it was Abu Nidal's men, not Arafat's, who shot Argov, then-chief of staff Rafael Eitan was reported to have said, "Nidal, Shmidal, they're all the same.''" (Haaretz, 2004 [http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=199289&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y]) *"''[Abu Nidal's] organization attempted to assassinate Israel's ambassador to Britain, Shlomo Argov in June 1982. The attack on Argov, which left him seriously injured, triggered then-defense minister Ariel Sharon's invasion of Lebanon, which aimed to repel Palestinian forces controlled by Yasser Arafat. Abu Nidal's group had broken from Arafat's Fatah organization years before and had even plotted attempts on Arafat's life.''" (Haaretz, 2002 [http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=199216&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0]) *"''A suspected attempt by Abu Nidal gunmen on the life of Israel's ambassador to Britain in 1982 triggered Israel's massive invasion of Lebanon that year.''" (BBC, 2002 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2206187.stm]) *"''In 1982, Abu Nidal gunmen shot and critically wounded Israel's ambassador in London. Israel blamed Arafat's PLO and launched a huge invasion of Lebanon, driving Arafat and his forces out of the country.''" (USA today, 2003 [http://waqarkhan.com/family/WAQAR/USAToday.htm]) *"''June 3, 1982: Attempted assassination of Shlomo Argov, Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom. The attack will trigger the war Israel waged in Lebanon against the PLO presence.''" ( International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, (Israel) [http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=2]) Interestingly, and as is often the case, the Israeli press is more open as to the deceitful character of the official pretext - I guess ''hasbara'' is mainly for the US media. We'll have problems writing this up in a NPOV yet factually accurate manner ;) - User:Pir 15:06, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) I'll dig up some more info about PLO attacks on north ISrael prior to the invasion later - sorry no time now. -User:Pir 15:14, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Regarding Chomsky's reliablity in general, I recommend reading this [http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm], or if you have more time, this: [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/189355497X/qid=1098113068] . Chomsky is a POV warrior who would make most Wikipedia POV warriors look like rank amateurs by comparison. User:Jayjg 15:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Regarding "Chomsky's writings on the Arab-Israeli conflict [which] are a mass of distortions, misrepresentations and plain falsehoods" please see this: [http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/04-issue/bogdanor-4.htm]. User:Jayjg 17:04, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Sources for 700-800 deaths == ''Israeli figures, based on IDF intelligence, cite a figure of 700-800, a similar figure was released by Lebanese authorities and most Western sources.'' How similar are the figures? Which "Lebanese authorities"? And why should Western sources matter, unless they counted bodies? This needs to be fixed. --User:Style 15:32, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC) :AGREED. There is an unfortunate tendency to credit "Western" and Israeli sources as if they are above suspicion while "non-Western" accounts are dismissed as "unverifiable". See, for instance, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Operation_Days_of_Penitence_Fatalities User:Alberuni 16:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) :: Thanks for the pointer to VFD. User:Style 16:51, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC) :"Estimates of the number killed range from 460 according to the Lebanese police, to 700-800 calculated by Israeli intelligence. Palestinians claim 3,000 to 3,500 dead and call the action "genocide"." [http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_sabra_shatila.php] "The International Red Cross report of the incident indicates only 328 confirmed deaths, while more liberal estimates put the total at about 700. " [http://www.campustimes.org/news/2002/11/14/Opinions/Biological.Accuracy-324255.shtml] "More than 800 people were killed or went missing in a three-day killing spree by Lebanese Christian militiamen allowed into the camps by Israeli soldiers. Some estimates, however, put the death toll at 1,800. " [http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/lebanon020304_case.html] "857 Pal. & Leb. k. by Christian militia in Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in 1982." [http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm] "The exact death toll for the massacre remains unknown: estimates vary from 800 and 2 ,000." [http://www.mallat.com/articles/blanford%20csm.htm] "Estimates of the death toll range from 700 to 2,000. " [http://www.kurdistan.org/Clinton_in_Turkey/solomon.html] User:Jayjg 17:01, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) :: Palestine Facts is a mickey mouse, partisan website. It's claims will need to be verified. The Campus Times letter is just wrong. The IRC buried at least 1000. The ABC news article isn't an important source. Did ABC count bodies? The other sources state ranges, but not whether Israeli, Western or Lebanese (Christian or Muslim) sources actually made the claims. I need to know exactly who made the estimates, not just the range of estimates. Currently the article states that Lebanese and Western sources claim only 700-800 deaths. You have not sufficiently supported this. User:Style 17:24, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC) :::Apparently the IRC stated 328 confirmed deaths; why do you think they "buried at least 1000"? Also, the Lebanese police stated 460. Your opinions about the validity of other sources are interesting; thanks for sharing them. I don't see you subjecting the higher estimates to the same rigorous inspection or conditions. User:Jayjg 17:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::The book by Bayan Nuwayhed al-Hout I cited is IMHO, based on a very quick read, a fine, careful and scholarly work and probably is / will become the standard scholarly reference. Her minimum estimate of 1300 seems very solid (She gets 1390 from adding the names on many missing / deaths lists corroborated with other evidence and then eliminating thousands of duplicates, and then generously subtracts an estimated 90 based on the number of missing in various lists who later turned up.) The lower estimates' (ca. 500) unlikeliness is demonstrated, e.g. by taking their number of children killed ( <10%) and pointing out that many more children's corpses are shown in single photographs, provided in the book.--User:John Z 03:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ==United Nations General Assembly== We say "On December 16, 1982 the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide," but the source is secondary, maybe tertiary. [http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/Sabra.asp] Does anyone have a more solid citation for this? I've looked and can't find a chain of citation back to the resolution itself. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 06:26, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) :Funny, the [http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/faabb796990cf95a852560d9005240cf?OpenDocument UNGA Resolution A/RES/37/123(A-F)] is the first Google link if you simply highlight "December 16, 1982 the United Nations General Assembly" above and google it. User:HistoryBuffEr 06:39, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC) ::Yes, I already resolved this in the article I was really working on (with you), I didn't think to come back here and comment. It was because I'd added search terms and didn't coincide with them on the spelling of one, because I had followed ''your'' spelling. Anyway, once this is unprotected, let's get the better citation into the article. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 08:05, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) ===Once again cut=== The following seems to have been once again cut:
On December 16, 1982 the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. Sharon resigned as defense minister, but later became Israeli Prime Minister [http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/Sabra.asp].As remarked above, probably not the best citation (the first sentence here should cite the one User:HistoryBuffEr supplied) but the content seems factual and relevant. Is there any objection to restoring this? And if so, on what grounds? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 21:39, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC) When information of the UN-condemnation and Sharons resignation is given in this way it seems to imply that they are connected. Would it not be more correct to say something like: On December 16, 1982 the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. After beeing criticized by the Kahan-commission Sharon resigned as defense minister, but later became Israeli Prime Minister.