Proposal: W should also stand up for UN res. on Israel

Great Debates
101

You said this:

Yet, the site you quoted from does not in fact make this allegation - which is that Sharon planned the massacre.

The reason I asked for a cite is not that I am incapable of doing my own research. The reason I asked was that my own research confirmed my own analysis of the situation, and I was wondering if you had access to sources which contained different information.

Evidently not, as even a cite dedicated specifically to indicting Sharon does not actually accuse him of planning the massacre.

Rather, the “case against Sharon” is that, under international law, he bears the ultimate responsibility - quite regardless of whether he “actively took part in its implementation” or not:

“The central argument of the case hinges upon Ariel Sharon’s Command Responsibility as General of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), which was in full control of Beirut when the massacres took place in the contiguous refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. Although the killings of between 1000-2000 unarmed Lebanese and Palestinian civilians were carried out by Lebanese militia units affiliated directly or indirectly with the Israeli-backed Christian Lebanese Forces (the Phalange), the legal, military, and decision-making responsibility ultimately rests with Ariel Sharon under established and recognized principles of International Law.”

If the allegation that he actively took part in its implementation could be sustained, naturally there would be no need to refer to this theory of vicarious liability. The inescapable conclusion, based on the sources you have selected, is that the charge of direct responsibility cannot be sustained.

So I ask again - do you have any actual evidence to back up your statement? Or are you willing to admit to being wrong?

102

LOL! I am always happy to admit being wrong! But are you? :wink:

On the issue - I’m talking allegations. I thought I was asked for information on the allegations, not a detailed account from God. :wink: Perhaps the website offered was not much good.

My main source of information actually came from an American woman I know of who lives in Palestine. She used to post up accounts and comments on another community I used to manage on MSN - but since banned myself from when I resigned from it last year. Going back there to collect what she had posted from so long ago would present problems.

If you’re really after objective proof of Sharon’s involvement or no perhaps we can only really ask Sharon after quite prolonged and forceful interrogation.

Until then everyone’s stuck in different propaganda ruts that has become the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Truth was the first casuality. I’ll not claim to own that here.

103

Sorry - as for the event itself - you have to ask who commanded the Israeli soldiers to leave their posts and turn their backs on the very people they were supposedly guarding closely. Was it Sharon? Don;t know. Perhaps we never will. Only a proper inquiry could determine where the order came from.

104

I think the point is that the armoured militia that was allowed to enter the camp, were well-known enemies of the palestinians.
On top of that, as i remember it, their leader had just been assassinated.

So let me supply the following circumstancial “evidence” on Sharon’s taking a pre-meditated decision on letting the militia enter the camp:

Premise I : If the militia is allowed to enter the camp, they will kill people.

Premise II: If the militia was allowed to enter the camp, it is unlikely that this happened without it being sanctionized by the general in charge.

Premise III: If the militia showed up at the camp with the intention of entering it and killing people, and if the camp was guarded by their allies, they probably knew they would be allowed to enter.

Conclusion: Sharon decided to let the militia enter the camp, knowing they would kill people.

Easy to speculate, harder to prove. I guess someone in the militia or the Israeli army would have to sing…

105

There was, as I recall, an Israeli investigation which pinned the blame on Sharon for vicarious liability - much as was called for on the “indict Sharon” website.

More direct involvement would indeed require proof. Criminal charges usually do.

I was not arguing that Sharon bore no responsibility. I was arguing that the allegations against him were that he failed to prevent a massacre by his allies, and that as commander he bore responsibility for that failure. The more reaching allegation - that he planned or took part in the massacre, behind the scenes if you will - has in fact not even been alleged, let alone proved.

I find arguments along these lines (in this case, from ** RandySpears**) problematic:

"I think the point is that the armoured militia that was allowed to enter the camp, were well-known enemies of the palestinians.
On top of that, as i remember it, their leader had just been assassinated.

So let me supply the following circumstancial “evidence” on Sharon’s taking a pre-meditated decision on letting the militia enter the camp:

Premise I : If the militia is allowed to enter the camp, they will kill people.

Premise II: If the militia was allowed to enter the camp, it is unlikely that this happened without it being sanctionized by the general in charge.

Premise III: If the militia showed up at the camp with the intention of entering it and killing people, and if the camp was guarded by their allies, they probably knew they would be allowed to enter.

Conclusion: Sharon decided to let the militia enter the camp, knowing they would kill people."

This is “premised” on the unspoken premise that, in essence, you can trust Arabs to be savage raping murderers against civilians when they have the upper hand over their helpless civilian enemies - indeed, in this account, Sharon is evidently counting on his allies’ savagery (see “premise I”). And, apparently, rightly so.

Quite a claim, and smacks heavily of some very negative anti-Arab stereotypes. Or maybe just anti-Christian Arab stereotypes.

I myself quite fail to see Sharon’s motives (aside from pure evil, which cannot of course be ruled out) for deliberately allowing his allies to commit a horrible massacre for which he would inevitably be blamed, and which has caused him endless trouble ever since.

106

**Malthus - **

You missed the important part of the premise - that the massacre occurred over a very prolonged period of time. The site quoted refers to 40 hours. Even if it was argued that the massacre occured over a shorter period of hours you still have a most astonishing situation.

So the premise runs thus:

1/ The IDF is closely guarding a refugee camp (the refugees are Arabs, therefore “terrorists”).

2/ The Phalange enter unhindered.

3/ The Phalange undergo a protracted massacre.

4/ The IDF did nothing to prevent the massacres, either before or during their occurence.

That has nothing to do with it - accusing the Serbs of genocide was not borne of anti-Christian stereotypes, nor of anti-Caucasian stereotypes. Genocide is genocide.

The important issue raised is why the IDF, so notoriously active when it suits, became suddenly very inactive.

And as stated, the degree (if any) regarding Sharon’s involvement remains unresolved.

[middle]- - - - - - - [/middle]

One of the problems regarding the entire Israeli-Palestinian issue is that there are two very entrenched camps -

1/ Palestinian terrorists kill Israeli’s, therefore Palestinians are evil,

2/ Israeli’s kill Palestinians, therefore Israeli’s are evil.

Many would prefer the issues to be perceived as black and white, but the seeming grey areas are so thick with politics and propaganda that’s it’s a hard area to work in.

As the most powerful and developed of the two, Israel has the power to break the cycle of violence and offer compromise. But Israel has such hardline tendencies within its political system that compromise has become a dirty word. So dirty, that when greater men such as Rabin offered a real and practical route to peace, the hardliners silenced him with a bullet.

The entire situation cannot be resolved until we have another statesman like Rabin.

107

How large was the camp and over what area did the murders occur?

108

I was reacting to RandySpear’s characterization of the situation as “problematic”. The issue of standing by and doing nothing for a long time is a different issue than stating as a premise that “if they enter the camp, they will kill people” - and expecting Sharon to know this in advance, or simply assume that this is true.

It is not the fact of “accusing them of Genocide” that raises the apprehension of bias – if they did, they did. It is the assumption, stated as a fact, that if left unsupervised genocide is inevitable – in fact, so inevitable that Sharon was counting on them behaving as they did (rather than, say, being taken by surprise when they ran amuck).

I am not defending Sharon here. I am simply attempting, like a good Doper, to strip away shoddy thinking and expose what is more likely to have really happened.

It is entirely possible that Sharon planned the whole thing, and that this collusion has simply not been uncovered. It is possible that he didn’t plan it, but deliberately failed to protect civilians when his allies ran amuck - thus an accessory after the fact (I assume that this is the theory you now favour). It is possible that he neither planned it not was an accessory. One can imagine that, having been told the camp was swarming with terrorists, and seeing his allies go in, and hearing gunshots and screams, his officers simply assumed that a battle was in progress - the conclusion that it was a massacre may have only come in hindsight (I do not know, but it is a possibility).

What is difficult to believe is that he sneakily relied on the natural savagery of Arabs to create a massacre without any direct instigation from himself - which is the allegation I was responding to. That allegation, quite frankly, is rather insulting to Arabs (to say nothing of Sharon).

109

Ah, much clearer - thanks.

I see different possibilities. Which is the most probable I do not know. It’s an open issue. The matter of the camp massacres have not been satisfactorily addressed or resolved, and so long as there is Israeli-Palestinian conflict I doubt there ever will be. Just another casualty of war?

110

Malthus:

This doesn’t have to be a race issue. The Phalange were known as particularly brutal militia, in and of themselves, and regardless of their nationality. IIRC, Christian Muslims had been subjected to similar massacres in the past, and according to what I’ve read about the event, it was fairly common knowledge that the Phalange were spoiling for revenge. There is the problem that the Israeli Army, well aware that the Phalange were a brutal militia group who hated the PLO, nevertheless allowed them 40 hours of free access to two refugee camps. Personally, I doubt Sharon planned it, but strongly suspect that he knew it was going to happen and facilitated it.

The general Israeli defense is, “The Phalange were our allies, and we thought they were as well-disciplined as we are. We can’t be held responsible because they ran amok.” I don’t buy it.

Otherwise, for the record, thanks for your insightful posts, especially regarding UN/Israeli relations. You make some very good points.

111

Well, they certainly are known now as a brutal militia. Hindsight is always perfect. I have not heard that they committed other massacres in the past, prior to this - though I admit to not knowing whether they had or not (although if they had, I imagine this fact would be well-known).

The issue is whether Sharon knew in advance that they would run amok - and was so certain of this that he in fact relied on them doing so. This I find difficult to believe.

Was he criminally negligent? That is a much easier case to make. As supreme commander, he must be held responsible for all actions under his command. I would say the answer must be “yes”.

The more serious charge, that ke knowingly facilitated or initiated the massacre, is both more difficult to prove and I think relies far too much on assumptions about the behaviour of Arabs in general and the Phalange in particular - that the desire for revenge and the lack of restraint on behaviour suffice to make a massacre predictable (indeed certain) in advance, such that Sharon could count on this response.

I may be alone in finding this problematic. It is always difficult to say, after an event has taken place, that it was not totally predictable – but it may be more accurate. However, I point out that the US did not try the general in command (Westmoreland?) after the Mai Lai massacre in Viet Nam - although apparently the instability of the officer in command was well-known and, in hindsight, the massacre was probably inevitable. In addition, the soldiers in question were US soldiers and thus their attitudes etc. ought to have been more predictable than those of allies.