An Israeli/Zionist site on Deir Yassin The article (complete with its internal links) is, IMO, a fair and unbiased one, complete with quotes from both sides.
An excerpt from Noam Chomsky on Sabra, Shatilla and the Israeli offensive into Lebanon in general and Robert Fisk’s account. Here can be read the account of Ellen Siegel, an American Jewish nurse.
A brief note:
(a) Per my understanding from recent Israeli historiography there remains little doubt that Deir Yassine and other similar events less famous were massacres. See Morris. Not one incident, many incidents, Dseid. Planned ones at that. However, as you note, the Arab Legion was having equal fun. So, on one hand if Squish wants to demonstrate that Israeli forces and Zionist militias have not been little darlings that some propaganda would like to paint them as, that is true. War is hell. On the other hand,
(b) Israeli society has largely faced up to lapses, and the voices critiqueing the excuse making etc. are strong and persistant. Sadly P society, Arab society (being unfree in large part) has not.
Further, while I do believe Sharon’s policies to be wrong-headed and counter-productive, IDF has clearly tried to walk a fine line.
Unbalance on one side should not result in unbalance in another direction.
Collounsbury, I agree with you. The point I was trying (ineptly) to make is that to paint Palestinians with the tar brush whilst white-washing the Israelis is unfair. However, in regards to your point B, Sharon–the man whom the Israelis decided bore a large part of responsibility for the Sabra-Shatilla massacre–was elected by his people to be the head of his nation.
I readily state my ignorance as to the facts of what really happened at Deir Yassin; without information to the contrary I’ll accept the version portrayed on your referenced cite as accurate. As to the portrayal of the Lebanon invasion as an “atrocity” … we could have a few pages of back and forth debating that and come to no agreement. I will certainly agree that my impression has been that the operation was carried out without adequate respect for the human rights of noncombatants. That Israel has had its share of individuals who would have no problem with a few extra Arabs getting killed. And a few who have tried to make it so. Some people have gotten elected in Israel who I would not vote for if I lived there. But then I didn’t vote for Dubya either.
Many? Many episodes that were “atrocities” like Dier Yassin is presumed to have been, intentional murder of men, women, and children, as the purpose of an operation? (Different than as a side effect of trying to accomplish a different militarily appropriate goal with debate on how hard the Israelis tried to avoid such a consequence.) In greater than half a century of conflict I am sure that you could find a handful or so, but I doubt “many”. And I appreciate Collounsbury’s fairminded acknowledgement that Israeli society as a whole has tried hard to police its own. Not always with total success, but it has made real efforts.
This is where the tar brush comes out. Not only in that such actions are abberations in Israel which are generally condemned by the society at large, compared to the volume and almost normative nature of such actions by parts of the Arab side. But that much of the Arab leadership has historically overtly called for such actions and to this day support it.
Which brings us back to the OP. What should the Palestinians do? Leadership should back up its verbal condemnation of terror attacks with solid actions against terrorists. A beginning would be to make it understood (not a public mouthing, but really privately understood) that guerilla tactics against military targets within the West Bank would be “ignored” by the PA but that terror attacks against civilian targets will be met with every force that the PA can muster against those responsible. And to then do it. Instead of continued funding of those groups who directly commit terror against civilians within Israel. Sadly, such a basic concept would be a bold move.
In whose interest is such an action? Of course Israel’s. And the Palestinians’ who would gain a pathway to dialing down the cycle of attack and retribution. And thereby gain a pathway to a fair negotiated settlement. To a future. And in Arafat’s interest, who only has a future as a leader of his people if he can demonstrate the ability to control his side and the willingness to do so.
Allowing continued terror attacks, let alone funding them, is in no one’s interest.
Nor did I–but Dubya wasn’t found responsible for an atrocity. Sharon was, by an Israeli investigation, and still his people elected him to their highest office. I don’t think this is a phenomenom we should take lightly.
We are certainly in agreement there. My urging of understanding for why suicide bombing occurs is by no means an endorsement of it.
Something needs to be done, and soon. Personally, I thought the Saudi-proposed plan was fair and just. I’d like to hear thoughts on that.
squish A nitpick: he was found responsible for not adequately preventing an atrocity by Christian militias under his watch, not for committing it. Still, your point is reasonable. Why did Israel, whose mainstream clearly wants peace and out of the West Bank, and who had immediately previously elected a prime minister whose platform was peace even at substantial cost, elect Sharon, whose platform was then more hardline than his current actions are, and whose reputation was less than the great negotiator?
I think that you can guess that my opinion is that it was a reaction born out of frustration with the failure of good faith negotiations and with the return to violent actions. The more the Palestinian side ramps up violent actions on Israeli citizenry, the farther the mean shifts to the Right, the more likely that harder line officials will be elected. Bibi may be up next again, cause the Israeli Left aint got the leadership to make a case in this kind of climate.
Dseid,
I haven’t been following this thread. But I think I can provide a bit of perspectiveon the issue that you have raised here.
You have explained why the voters supported the right wing candidate against Ehud Barak. But not why that candidate was Specifically Arik Sharon.
And your nitpick is not a nitpick. Its a major point here. Had Arik Sharon committed any atrocity he would have been finished in Israeli politics. But since he did not commit one, although he was found to be negligent in relation to what happend in lebanon, he remained a viable candidate.
Why was he elected among all the center right to far right candidates? That’s because of internal Likud political mechanisms which are a mystery to me. Although one thing I do know is that Bibi Netanyahu chose not to run since the elections were for prime minister only and not the Kneset. Had he chose to run, he probably would have been pm today. And his policies would probably have been identical to Sharon’s current policies, which are a function of the kneset who’s composition has not been changed since before the current right wing swing.
PR wise, Sharon’s name is associated with those massacres in Lebanon. Even though the international criticism of him is exagerated and unfair, since the world percieves him this way, he probably wasn’t the best candidate during such a difficult period for us diplomatically.
Having said all that I will say that I thing he has done a good job as prime minister, even though he hasn’t really departed much from Barak’s approach, which had already started to shift towards what we see now before he left office.
Thanks for the correction, DSeid. I, personally, think the settlement offered to the Palestinians was unacceptable, as it divided the proposed Palestinian state into three sections separated by Israel. I also feel that the Palestinians are as frustrated, if not more than, the Israelis, and most importantly, that the cycle of violence is perpetuated by both sides.