We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Jihad, spun While the terrorists were busy in Spain, the ‘militants’ have been at work in Israel:
A double suicide bombing in the southern Israeli port area of Ashdod has killed at least 11 people.
A Palestinian militant had entered the port and asked for water – and the moment he was shown where there was a tap “he blew up” – an employee of the port quoted one of his injured colleagues as saying.
Well, there is no reason why the work of terrorists should disrupt the busy schedule of ‘militants’ is there? Mind you, these trade unionists agitating for better working conditions have got a very strange way of going about it.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
OK, point made on the “militant” issue from your satirical post a couple of days back.
I still think it was in poor taste. I guess it’s possible to be in the right at the same time.
To the unconsciously anti-semitic Western liberal media, terrorism against Jews is not terrorism.
AND Arafish has let the killers of our 3 people go.
“Terrorism” is the overused word. Its meaning is now hoplessly blurred and it is often used (as in “The War on Terrorism”) to avoid analysis or effectively conveying any meaning other than disapproval. Discussions in which “terrorism” is adduced have a habit of becoming circular.
It is because it has become a blanket term of condemnation that we get demands for it to be applied–or disapplied–in particular cases. Calling someone a terrorist is no longer descriptive of their intent. It is a political act.
To adopt violence, whether terrorist in the strict sense or not, it is certainly necessary to be a “militant” in one’s cause, though one need not be violent to be a militant. I don’t have a problem with calling the Ashdod bomber a militant and leaving the evil of his actions to speak for itself. Another case where the media are notably reluctant to use the t-word, though it quite accurately applies, is the use of intimidation by animal rights groups.
I think it is a mistake–as in Madrid–to describe random acts of violence as “terrorism” without any knowledge of the perpetrators or their motives. There are plenty of other words: murder, for instance.
To anticipate the point that what’s being criticised here is the liberal-left media’s inconsistent application of the boo-word, just because they use language in a misleading way doesn’t mean we should encourage them in doing so, to cover everything in the same glutinous glaze of emotional cod-liver-oil.
Guy, what do you mean ‘without any knowledge of the perpertrators or their motives’?
Their motives were to inspire terror!
They are terrorists!
Guy Herbert,
When you kill your wife or neighbor – it’s murder. When 200 people get murdered by impersonal perpetrators for things that they were not involved in at all, or for no reason, it *IS* terrorism.
Stop beeing nuanced to absurdity.
If this atrocity wasn’t terrorism – what is?
“It’s meaning is now hoplessly blurred ”
Well, after Madrid it’s blurred no more.
Ah, but the good and great Israelis firing missiles into residential areas, does not cause ‘terror’ at all and is of course a good and just use of violence to cause indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians. Terrorism under the guise of national authority is still terrorism. There is so much hypocrisy on both sides and neither can lay claim to innocence.
Mike,
“firing missiles into residential areas”
Israel is not firing missiles into residential areas. Israel is firing missiles at terrorists and murderers that have killed scores of people and are busy staging further acts of mass murder.
That they succeeded in inspiring terror doesn’t prove that that was what they were trying to do. My impression is that a lot of recent political violence is either demonstrative in intent: that it is aimed at rallying support or showing strength. Some seems to be simple mass killing for its own sake by the bloodthirsty resentful, or those who promote it as cheap warfare.
I don’t think it is being unduly nuanced to suggest that “terrorism” ought to be reserved for attempts at demoralising opposition by fear, whether naive orwith the deeper aim of inspiring state repression in classic Bakhuninite fashion.
The reason I’m so concerned about the distinction is precisely because our government and popular reactions seem to me unduly fearful and repressive, as well as strategically wrongheaded. This would be bad enough in reaction to genuine terrorism, in that it gives terrorists what they want. (That’s certainly the latest signal from the new Socialist government in Spain. Whatever their underlying policy, one would have hoped they’d have the sense not to make a gift of synchronicity.) But mistaking the nature of the threat means that the counterstrategy is likely wrong.
Jacob gives an example of the same sort of muddling thinking, but from a different angle.
Because he imputes a good motive to the IDF, he is prepared to deny a clear fact about what they are doing. They are, by their own report, firing missiles into residential areas. Whether or not they are justified in doing so, whether (justified or not) it is good strategy, and whether or not the intent or effect of doing to is to inspire terror, are different questions.
Guy here demonstrates his biased stand. (I will admit that I am biased: I am pro-civilization.)
We have got to know that the IDF has to combat barbarians that often hide behind arab population, a population acting as human shields.
By willing to protect the terror activists, these population surrendered their innocence, and if IDF kill some of them accidentally, it’s the terrorists’ fault.
Jaume Folch purports to deduce my opinions on the IDF’s actions from my comment above, which was very carefully neutral. He neatly makes my point about vague but highly pejorative language displacing rational discourse.
(I probably would fare much less well were I not writing in English, though.)
Guy Herbert:
Leaving opinions aside lets look at the facts:
“They are, by their own report, firing missiles into residential areas”
This statement is a half-truth and creates the wrong impresion that IDF fires randomly at civilians with the aim of killing and terrorizing. (Like, say, in Madrid).
This is FALSE.
The missiles are very carefully aimed, and with great precission, exactely at the terrorists. It is not only a matter of intention but also of execution. Sometimes bystanders get hurt. That happens in war, and though regretable, is unavoidable. Israel didn’t start this war. The Palestinians have the option of stopping whenever they wish.
Of course, the Arabs, including Osama, say they are fighting for a just cause, and their means are justified. Seems you agree with this statement, at least in some degree.
All I wrote was:
“They are, by their own report, firing missiles into residential areas.”
Fact.
Jacob wrote, at first:
“Israel is not firing missiles into residential areas.”
Which is false. Having resiled from that untruth, he offered extensive justification for the firing:
“The missiles are very carefully aimed […]”
I don’t propose to agree or disagree with that justfication here.
The whole point of my commentary on this thread has been that it is important to separate the description of actions, the ascription of motive for those actions, and the moral evaluation of actions and/or motives, and to separate evidence from assumption; that is dangerous to blur them by devaluing language. The stronger the emotional charge of a particular topic, the more important it is to distinguish fact and feeling, else we become the victims of our prejudices.
We can not know for sure whether or not the Israelis meant to cause terror, but what is clear is that the indiscriminate methods they use for targeting people they claim to be terrorists goes beyond the levels of ‘reasonable force’ and one clear side effect of this is that it engenders an atmosphere of terror in the civilian population. David’s original post was highlighting the hypocrisy of describing palestinians as “militants” versus the description of the Madrid bombers as “terrorists”. My point was that describing the Palestinians as terrorists could also bring into question methods that the Israelis were using. I am neither pro-Israeli nor pro-Palestinian – I can see that neither side holds the moral high ground here and that there is tragedy on both sides – the number of civilian casualties on both sides attests to this. Jacob is so fervently pro-Israeli that his comments are barely worth commenting on. Nevertheless:
>”They are, by their own report, firing missiles into >residential areas”
>This statement is a half-truth”
There is no “half” to this kind of fact. Are the Israelis firing missiles into civilian areas? Yes they are – the targets are not the issue here. The statement is true.
>Israel didn’t start this war.
As far as I was aware, there was no “war” between Israel and Palestine so it is difficult to determine which side started it. The Israelis hands are certainly not clean in this affair – if someone calls your mother a whore and you punch them who is to blame for starting the fight?
What is patently clear is that neither side has shown a great commitment to ending the violence, and that both sides continue to use unjustified terror tactics.
and that both sides continue to use unjustified terror tactics.
So the Israelis fire missiles into two empty buildings and, in your mind, that is just as bad as murdering 11 civilians?
In the circumstances, I think Israelis are showing supernatural levels of restraint and that is rather a shame in my view.
David: I think if you look at the figures for civilian casualties you will find that far more innocent civilians have been killed on the Palestinian side than on the Israeli side. Not all of these were bystanders, caught up as the Israelis attempted to target ‘terrorists’. Many were senseless killings (I am trying to use neutral vocabulary here, but, following your lead, perhaps the use of the word murder would be more appropriate here?) of innocent civilians, many of them women and children, by Israeli soldiers. As I said earlier, neither side can assume the moral high ground in this affair. You appear to be claiming it for the Israelis which is misguided. I am simply trying to redress the balance.
So the Israelis fire missiles into two empty buildings and, in your mind, that is just as bad as murdering 11 civilians?
Interesting to note that you made no attempt to deny this.
If I am going to be subjected to condescending lessons about the ‘moral high ground’ I would rather they were from somebody who actually knows what that term means.
David: I am not entirely sure why you have decided to turn this into a personal attack against me. As I stated I was trying to introduce balance into a rather one-sided argument. I had no intention to be condescending and apologize if I came across that way. I did not comment on the figures that you gave because they refer to a single incident in a much more complex situation. It would just be as easy to find a single incident that would favor the palestinian viewpoint. This would also be wrong.
I am not entirely sure why you have decided to turn this into a personal attack against me..
Oh for chissakes, Mike, I attacked your attitude not you. Please grow a thicker skin and stop reaching for the mantle of victimhood.
Mike,
“As I stated I was trying to introduce balance into a rather one-sided argument.”
You are very “fair” and “balanced” and feel smug about it. The problem is you are ignorant of the facts.
“Many were senseless killings ……. of innocent civilians, many of them women and children, by Israeli soldiers. ”
Where did you get your info from? This is totally false, these are lies, propaganda. Israeli soldiesr never fire at “innocent civilians”, they only return fire when they are fired upon. Civilians get killed sometimes when they are caught in crossfire, when Palestinian gunmen open fire. Civilians are never deliberately targeted by Israelis.
Where do you get your information from ? From Robert Fisk or from George Galloway (or whatsisname)?
What about the Americans who fired some missiles at a restaurant in Bagdad in March 2003, before the war, trying to nail Saddam, and killing a couple dozen innocents instead ? Was that “firing missiles into civilian areas” ? Was that an act comparable to the Madrid massacre ?
Guy Herbert,
Leaving facts of particular cases aside this time – you are absolutely wrong on the philosophical issue of right and wrong.
Side A fights a justified war (self defence) and targets enemy forces or instalations, and hits by accident some civilians (collateral damage).
Side B targets intentionally, and consistently, over time, civilians, as a means to further their (just? unjust?) war aims.
These two situations are not equivalent, despite the seemingly similiar outcome (civilians hurt). You have to consider all the circumstances of a case in forming a moral judgement. You cannot just consider some superficially similar partial fact fact and ignore the whole situation.
Jacob:
None of my posts in this thread have been directed to the question of what constitutes right and wrong conduct. I am perplexed why you think I’m arguing with you about it, in either a particular or an abstracted case.
I’m worried, as was David in his original post, about the use of language that pre-judges the subject under discussion. It is about PC, if you like. You support my concerns by consistently failing to take that point and insisting that by not automatically characterising actions in a fashion that reflects your moral and political views, I am somehow complicit in evil.
Your position is analogous to that of someone who insists the statement: “Much street crime in Peckham is commited by young black men,” is unacceptable and can only be made by a racist regardless of whether it is true or not.
David / Jacob,
Here’s an article from Ha’aretz last week which might give you a slightly different perspective on what constitutes terrorism:
Words have failed us
By Amira Hass
This is an admission of failure. The written word is a failure at making tangible to Israeli readers the true horror of the occupation in the Gaza Strip. When something is written about the sea being closed off to Palestinians in the north and south of the Strip, the response will be “they are terrorists.” If something is written about neighborhoods in the western part of the Khan Yunis refugee camp and how the buildings are all full of bullet holes from heavy machine guns and cannon shells, the response will be “the Palestinians started it.” Tell the story of how 15-year-old Yusuf Bashir’s family home in Dir al-Balah has been turned into an army fortress, and in Israel they’ll say, “there is no choice, the Jewish settlement of Kfar Darom must be protected, like Kfar Dekalim, Atzmona and Morag.”
A report that the soldiers in a military position right next to Yusuf’s house agreed to allow a UN team into the family’s courtyard will be used in Israel as proof of the humanitarian attitudes of soldiers who are ready to take risks while doing their duties. And when it’s reported that suddenly one of the soldiers – an officer, as the IDF spokeswoman would later say – “shot at the wheels of a suspicious vehicle” (the UN team’s car), in Israel that will be a shooting that never happened. And then, it will be reported that the boy, Yusuf Bashir, was shot in the back as he waved goodbye to the visitors from the UN, and it is possible he’ll remain paralyzed for life – maybe that word “paralyzed” will give a few readers pause. But so many stories about so many Yusufs never get reported, and never will get reported.
This admission of the failure of the written word is not meant to enhance the role of photography. A picture may indeed be worth a thousand words, but for the Israeli occupation to approach some level of comprehension, Israelis need to see tens of thousands of photographs, one after the other, or watch documentaries that are at least eight hours long each, so they could grasp in real time the fear in the eyes of the school children when some whistling above turns into twisted crushed metal with charcoaled bodies inside.
Another movie should show the viewers the vineyards of Sheikh Ajalin, the ripe grapefruits, the peasants who for years nurtured the fruit with great love only to see it all turned to scorched earth left behind by Israeli tanks and bulldozers. No movie has yet been produced that would enable Israelis to taste the wonderful grapes of Sheikh Ajalin. The vineyards are gone so the military positions can protect Netzarim.
How would photographs illustrate the following facts – from September 29th up to Monday this week, 94 Israelis have been killed – 27 civilians and 67 soldiers, according to the IDF. From that same date up to February 18th this year 1,231 Palestinians have been killed – all of them were terrorists? Lacking a central Palestinian agency, there are differences between the data provided by Palestinian groups and none claim to be 100 percent accurate.
The human rights group Mezan, based in Jabalya refugee camp, found that 81 women were killed by IDF gunfire in the Strip; 344 children under the age of 18 were killed by IDF gunfire; 255 members of the Palestinian security and police forces, killed either at their positions or offices and frequently in battle; 264 were armed men who took part in battles with the IDF or tried to attack military positions or settlers and settlements. In the IDF’s targeted assassinations, 46 of those killed were the targets of the attacks – and 80 were passersby killed with “pinpoint prevention.”
The failure to bring all this home to to readers is not because of the weakness of words or a lack pictures. It is because Israeli society has learned to live in peace with the following facts. There are 8,000 Jews and 1.4 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The total area of the Strip is 365 square kilometers. The settlements occupy 54 square kilometers. Along with the areas held by the IDF, according to the Oslo accords, 20 percent of the Strip is under Israeli control. That’s 20 percent of the territory for half of one percent of the population.
The Israeli army’s mission is to protect the security of the Israeli half of one percent, which occupies plenty of land, has freedom of movement, opportunities for development, and fresh water – unlike the saline liquid allocated to the Palestinians. Israeli military positions meant to protect the settlements are located inside and beside the settlements and have a commanding view of all the civilian Palestinian neighborhoods.
The proximity of every expansive settlement to the densely populated, suffocating crowded Palestinian community is what causes the large number of Palestinian casualties in the Gaza Strip, including many civilians. It is what determines the flexible rules of engagement, the type of bombs that break into fragments, the unmanned aircrafts that fire missiles.
The IDF operates within the logic of those arrogant, cynical, and ruthless settlements of a privileged fat few sitting in the midst of the only land reserves that the Palestinians have in the Gaza Strip. Despite talk of “withdrawal,” Israeli society has yet to show any signs that it is shaking off the blatantly immoral logic that feeds the very existence of the settlements. And that’s as true of the Gaza Strip as it is of the West Bank.
What do you think?
To try and justify everything the IDF does in the name of self-defence demonstrates a wilful disregard for both the facts and the suffering of innocent civilians. It makes you complicit in their suffering.
And if you think their tactics and the leadership of Sharon will deliver a peaceful solution to the Arab/ Israeli conflict then, I reckon, not only are you part of the problem, by providing this approach with your support, but you will also be very disappointed.
The Israeli’s become more desperate everyday. They lash out with ever increasing brutality. They resort to building a ‘security wall’ – a solution that demonstrates all the sophistication of thought of a medieval oligarch.
There’s a demographic time bomb ticking away. The Israeli ‘economy’- well, what economy? More and more Israeli’s choose not to live with the paranoid bunker mentality that is modern Israel and now do Aliya in reverse. They’ve reaped a whirlwind…
I think Palestinians that blow up innocent civilians on buses and in bars are no better than animals. I think the present Israeli response to dealing with these animals will lead, ultimately, to the destruction of the state of Israel as we know it.
Guy Herbert,
The more you explain the less I understand. It must be my fault.
Do you say that using the word “terrorism” to describe what occured in Madrid is wrong “because it pre-judges the subject” ?
I think the “T” word perfectly describes the subject.]
You think I am biased and voice my prejudice in using this “T” word ? You bet. If you’re unbiased toward this phnomenon and have a neutral attitude to it – you are a strange type indeed.
What David was asking is why is the “T” word used in one case and the “militant” word used in another one. Isn’t this distinction conveying the subjective value-judgement of the media ? A judgement that killing some people is awful but killing others is not so awful?
Do you think the difference in the wording is randomal and insignificant ?
I’m inclined to agree with David’s original point that the mainstream media are more reluctant to use the word “terrorism” in some cases than others–as I thought my aside on animal rightists indicated. Where I depart from him is that I think less loaded words are preferable in almost every case.
That is for two reasons:
1. Heavily emotive language pre-judges the issues in more ways than simple right/wrong. It brings in a jumble of connotations that may well not (and usually aren’t) appropriate in the context. Argument is pre-empted by rhetoric as surely as by selective presentation.
2. I don’t want the news media to convey moral messages that agree with me, any more than I want them to propagandise for a different point of view. Their job is to provide information as far as possible free from bias, which is better accomplished by neutral language.
Pete,
You are right.
The situation isn’t rosy. A war is going on, and wars are ugly. For all involved.
What do you propose ? That Israel stops defending herself ? Will that put an end to the war ?
Amira Hess has her point of view, and consistently reports only one side of the picture – the one that bothers her. It bothers me too, but there is also another side. Palestinians are firing and bombing Israelis on a daily, no, hourly basis. Every day there are dozens of attacks. Maybe Amira Hess believes these attacks are justified, they need no reporting, and only IDF’s shooting back needs to be condemned. IDF is trying to protect Israel and it’s citizens. It does not shoot Palestinians for fun.
It’s standard practice of pacifists to point out that war is ugly. There is no dispute about that. The problem starts when they blame only one side for this, usually the wrong side. The more “objective” and “magnanimous”, “even handed” (or uninformed)do gooders – blame both sides equally. This is wrong too.
It’s like assigning equal blame for WW2 to Churchil and Hitler.
Jacob,
If it was just a simple question of Israel defending herself I would have far more understanding for the reaction of her leadership and the tactics of the IDF. Of course this is not the case. Israel is defending illegal settlements. Israel is defending an internationally condemned land grabbing policy in the West bank – condemned, I might add, by a large proportion of her own citizens. And Sharon is defending these policies with the same restraint he displayed in Sabra and Chatilla. And he would do well to remember what happened in Lebanon.
Israelis should be thankful for the likes of Amira Hass. She holds up a mirror to the people of Israel. It is not her fault if what they see is ugly. And she does it because she loves Israel and wants to see it survive, not because she is some sort of self-flagellating pacifist.
I won’t try to apportion blame – a useless pursuit in this instance, but if you are suggesting that Israel is entirely blameless then I simply cannot agree.
I want to see Israel survive, but with an indicted war-criminal for a leader, a complete disregard for the Palestinian people and being unable to conceive of a solution other than meeting violence with violence, I am not hopeful.
“I want to see Israel survive, but with an indicted war-criminal for a leader, a complete disregard for the Palestinian people and being unable to conceive of a solution other than meeting violence with violence, I am not hopeful.”
Here your prejudices come to light.
“a complete disregard for Palestinian people ”
That’s utterly false. Israel has proposed a very reasonable solution and compromise which has been rejected by the Palis.
“unable to conceive of a solution ….”
As I said, many solutions have been conceived and proposed. It is consistently the Palestinians who reject any solution and initiate terrorism, as it seems that the only solution most of them would accept is the elimination of the state of Israel.
You are entitled to your opinions, and they are widespread everywhere, even in Israel. But they are false.
As to this: “indicted war-criminal for a leader” ….
That’s on the level of those tranzi nuts who chant Bush=Hitler.
Jacob,
You accuse me of prejudice. I wondered how long that would take. Hmmm, well, it’s the last resort, isn’t it? If everything else fails, accuse them of prejudice and call them names. Weak, very weak.
You also wrote: “As to this: “indicted war-criminal for a leader” …. That’s on the level of those tranzi nuts who chant Bush=Hitler”
But Sharon IS an indicted war criminal, is he not?
And perhaps you could enlighten me as to just how reasonable these solutions and compromises that the Israelis offered were?
Your tunnel vision does you and the Israelis that share it no favours whatsoever. There are good Israeli’s who can see that their country is being led into oblivion. I just hope for your sake, and for the sake of Israel, that they prevail.
And perhaps you might like to take your high moral tone and explain to a very old family freind who can never forget scrapping his colleagues off the walls and ceilings of the King David’s Hotel that Israel is just an innocent victim.
P.S.
The more you explain the less I understand.
Story of my life, I’m afraid. I usually assume it is my fault for putting my case insufficiently clearly.
“But Sharon IS an indicted war criminal, is he not?”
Well, no, he isn’t.
As I said, what you take as self evident facts aren’t that. Your knowledge and notions are muddled.
Sharon is a brilliant military man who saved Israel’s hide several times when she was attacked by the Arabs, most notably in 1973.
If you are really interested in the Israel-Arab conflict – learn about it, and not exclusivly from anti Israeli sources. You are very smug in your conviction that you know everything there is, but you don’t.
Jacob,
The Sabra-Shatila massacre case against Sharon
By Michael Jansen NICOSIA (Middle East Times)
Spurred by international efforts to bring war criminals round the world to book and the more recent hunt for Yugoslavia’s Serbian leaders, Lebanon has launched investigations into an Israeli massacre that shocked the world nearly 19 years ago.
The new inquiry follows a suit filed on June 27 by Lebanese lawyer May Khansa against the then Israeli defense minister and current Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, charging him with war crimes for his role in the massacre.
This is the latest of three suits filed in June against Sharon. The two others were submitted on June 12 and 18 to examining magistrates at the Hague in Belgium.
In 1993 Belgium enacted a law providing for criminal jurisdiction of Belgian courts over breaches of the Geneva Conventions in cases of internal armed conflict, regardless of who committed the crimes and where they were committed. In 2001, a trial started against four Rwandans accused of genocide in their country in 1994 and two of them were convicted in early June.
The Egyptian Bar Association has also begun trying Sharon in absentia.
The recent attempts to arrest and bring to trial Serbian political and military leaders before the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague, culminating in early-July’s appearance before the tribunal of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, appears to have given an impetus to try Sharon.
The current suits have been bolstered by a recent British television documentary titled ‘The Accused’.
Experts quoted in the film, made by the British Broadcasting Corporation, said Sharon should be indicted for the murder of least 800 civilians. Latest estimates, based on Lebanese complaints before Belgian courts, set the number of dead and disappeared at 2,800.
Richard Falk, professor of international law at Princeton University, told the filmmakers: “Sharon’s specific command responsibility arises from the fact that it was he [who] gave the directions and orders” that led to the massacre.
Morris Draper, United States special envoy to the Middle East at the time, told the program that when Sharon ordered his army into West Beirut, he was in breach of an agreement with the United States that his troops would not enter this sector of the city.
Draper revealed the Israeli army command informed him ahead of time that it would not only violate the agreement but also deploy militiamen from Israel’s local ally, the right-wing Maronite Christian Phalange.
Draper’s response to Sharon’s claim that the actions of the Phalange could not be predicted was “complete and utter nonsense.”
Draper is right. Two examples suffice: In 1976 the Phalange massacred 1,500 Lebanese Muslims at the Qarantina and Maslakh quarters in East Beirut and hundreds of Palestinians at the Tel Zaatar refugee camp.
Furthermore, Phalange bloodlust had been exacerbated by the assassination on September 14 of the party chief Bashir Gemayel.
About 150 Phalangists were introduced by the Israeli army into the Sabra-Shatila camps on the evening of September 16, reports at the time revealed.
Sharon announced publicly that the object was to flush out 2,000 PLO fighters who he claimed stayed behind when the bulk of the forces were evacuated at the end of August.
However, no military man of Sharon’s experience would have deployed so few Phalangists to round up and capture so many Palestinians ‘fighters’.
While Israeli troops sealed off the camps and illuminated the streets with flares, Phalange militiamen began to torture, massacre and mutilate old men, women and children.
One of the survivors who filed a lawsuit in Belgium, Suad Srour, then 14, told the BBC that she was raped, shot and struck on the head by the militiamen who killed most members of her family.
My own investigations revealed that Israeli officers and men at the scene knew full well what was happening.
The Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv was informed at 11.10 p.m. on September 16 that 300 people had been killed but nothing was done to halt the slaughter. Time magazine wrote on October 4 that Sharon had planned for “many months” to use Phalangists to purge the camps. Sharon discussed the cleansing action with Gemayel on September 12, two days before the Phalangist leader’s assassination.
Ten days after the massacre, the Israeli daily Ha’aretz reported that Israeli intelligence had concluded the killing “was not the result of an explosion of [Phalangist] anger and a desire for vengeance [for the killing of Bashir]… as claimed by the Israeli authorities.”
The real aim, Ha’aretz said, was the “expulsion of the whole Palestinian population of Lebanon, beginning with Beirut.
“[The aim was] to create panic, to provoke an exodus, en masse, of Palestinians towards Syria and to convince all Palestinians in Lebanon that they were no longer safe in that country.”
Jonathan Frankel, an associate professor at the Hebrew University, wrote in The Jerusalem Post on June 27, nearly three months before the massacre: “Ariel Sharon… has never sought to keep secret his grand strategy… Lebanon should be cleared of foreign [PLO and Syrian] forces and re-established as a [pro-Israel] Christian-dominated state. The PLO should be effectively destroyed; the occupied territories [West Bank and Gaza] annexed to Israel; the Arab population there granted a highly limited form of internal autonomy; and Jewish settlements vastly expanded.
“Finally, the Palestinians should be encouraged to overthrow the Hashemite Kingdom and convert Jordan into their own national state,” which could serve as a refuge for West Bank and Gaza Palestinians pushed across the frontier by Israel.
Sharon’s ‘Peace for Galilee’ operation ended up costing 18,000 Lebanese and Palestinian lives and wounding 30,000 people.
Michael Jansen is a freelance journalist and author of the book The Battle for Beirut: Why Israel Invaded Lebanon.
Courtesy Gemini News Service
Of course I don’t know everything there is about the Arab/ Israeli conflict. What I do know I learn’t from the Israelis during the five and a half years I lived there.
As for Sharon being a “brilliant military man” – perhaps you should learn about the conflict not exclusively from an Israeli point of view.
We all seem to know a lot, these days. We’re able to form an amazing body of conflicting opinions about behaviors of people we don’t know in places we’ve never been toward other strangers (to us) who are their neighbors. From those opinions we’re also able to conclude how ‘we’ should respond as a nation or political force.
Somehow it never occurs to us that none of this is any of our business. I used to work on a ranch, half a century ago, with a Mescalero lad named Curtiss. A while back I ran into him again in the parking lot at a PowWow. He was sitting on the tailgate of a pickup with a couple of Chiricahuas bemoaning all the sympathy Apaches and other NAs are getting from whites in these latter days. “I spit on their sympathy! They don’t know enough to be sympathetic.”
Curtiss had a good point, one that spills over into a lot of other areas where opinion is concerned. Mostly we don’t know enough to have opinions about people we don’t know and places we haven’t been. We read books by biased people who probably also don’t know enough to form opinions, or worse, we get our views off newscasts.
Seems we can’t find enough to occupy us in our immediate circles, in our own lives, where we actually do know what we’re talking about. It’s a lot more comfortable, I suppose, to point fingers of judgement, wrath, ethics and morality off across the ocean somewhere than to take a close look at what’s happening in our own households.
Guy: Jaume Folch purports to deduce my opinions on the IDF’s actions from my comment above, which was very carefully neutral.
That was my fault; I will describe that better:
When Guy reports that the IDF fires “missiles into residential areas” without mentioning
(1) that the terrorists hide into those “residential areas”,
(2) that the missiles are directed to those terrorists, and
(3) that the IDF may cause casualties in the Arab population, but those are always unintended,
then he is biased, uninformed, or both.
Guy: He neatly makes my point about vague but highly pejorative language displacing rational discourse.
Indeed, Guy’s point is vague and/or incomplete.
Guy: (I probably would fare much less well were I not writing in English, though.)
In my values rank, I put goodness before grammar. sorry to all for my bad English.
I wanted to be your new member from Nigeria West Africa.
there is need for the world called monothesim faith to intract effectively so as save the world, islam may be the future faith for the world but it most proved it self.
there is need for the world so called monothesim faith to intract effectively so as save the world, islam may be the future faith for the world but it most proved it self.
There is nothing better than Islam, the religion of peace.
hahahahahahahahahaha… ‘religion of peace‘… Yeah, right.
What fools do you think we are? The only peace that Islam brings is the peace of the graveyard.