Talk:Bachir Gemayel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

I moved this page from BASHIR GEMAYEL. I am aware that in many English language publications his first name is spelt BASHIR, but every official document that I have been able to find uses the French spelling, BACHIR. Moreover, even the English language website of the Bachir Gemayel Foundation, run by his widow, uses the French spelling. I don't think we should anglicize the spelling, any more than we anglicize the spelling of French names. Davidcannon 22:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This article is not NPOV. It is a direct copy of http://www.lebanese-forces.org/bach/biography.htm

John Ball

I am aware that much of the information in the article is derived from the source you cited. That does not make it a "direct copy" (when I found the article, I did my best to rewrite it to the extent of de-plagiarizing it). Nor does it necessarily make it non-NPOV. NPOV simply means statement of facts, rather than interpretation of facts. All the article does is state historical details about Bachir Gemayel's political and military career. Now, can you provide sources to disprove the factual accuracy of anything in the article? You would probably call the source on which much of the article is based, POV, and I would be inclined to agree with you. Just because information is derived from a POV source, however, does not make the information POV. Facts are never POV. Interpretations of facts are. As far as I can gather, the historical facts presented in the article are not contradicted by any other source. Whatever spin on those facts you may have found in the source article is not to be found in this article. David Cannon 11:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Many of the articles relating to Lebanon are drawn from right wing Christian sources. There is a lack of balance. It's not that facts are wrong, it's that there are other facts which are omitted. John Ball 23/07/04

The article says year prior to that, in 1970, he had been briefly kidnapped by Palestinian militants, in an incident that may have influenced his later hostility to the Palestinian cause

I don't think he was hostile the Palestinian cause (definitely to the palestinians who were living in Lebanon but it's slightly different). He was definitely against the palestinian cause/presence in Lebanon (well that's a secret ;). Same for Camille Chamoun who was cynically for the palestinian cause OUTSIDE Lebanon because he hoped that it would allow palestinians to leave Lebanon one day. As for Bechir alliance with Israel, it was a pragmatic one (and, at the beginning a secret alliance), not an ideological one such as Etienne Saqr

David Cannon, could you explain the section on Bashir's (Bachir) assassination? I believe Shartouni was indeed apprehended and confessed to the crime; that's how they knew he did it. Could you cite some sources that says otherwise so we can straighten this out? --64.231.226.200 01:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gemayel and Israel

I would like to refute the following sentence in the article:

Although Gemayel did not cooperate with the Israelis publicly, his long history of tactical collaboration with Israel, whether real or suspected, counted against him in the eyes of many Lebanese Muslims.

Collaboration with Israel is very generally admitted even by the LF. I personally know LF who were trained in Israel and my cousin who was an LF (he disapproved a lot of LF policies but serving was mandatory for young Christians at one time) was evacuated by Israeli ships from the chouf in 1983 (an episode that left bitter memories toward Israel as the Israeli brutally withdrew in a couple of day and left the LF lines defenceless ).

If you want written evidence about Israeli/LF collaboration, you can always read the Kahan Report on Sabra and Chatila (it’s negative biased toward LF but this is not the point). You can also read Sharon’s autobiography (you’ll find it in any University Library). You'll get a pretty good picture of LF mentality if you go to this forum CLICK HERE. I am not validating its content, I am only providing it as evidence.

Now something that is disputed is if that collaboration was ideological or pragmatic. LF opponents (Baath, PSNS) claim that they were Israeli agents while LF claim they were using the Israelis to promote their agenda. I would say each party was trying to use the other (more evidence below). It means that LF-Israelis alliance was pragmatic since Bachir tried to kept it secret at the beginning (contrarily to the guardians of cedar who were open about it and ideologically advocated an alliance with Israel).

Fact is that Hobeika tried to dismiss that alliance after 1985 which shows that the ties were not ideological in nature and that the LF would forget about Israel if they believe it was their interest to do so. He was dismissed because he tried to sign an agreement with Syria, not because he weakened that alliance. At the end of the 80’s, the alliance with Irak was more important than the alliance with Israel as most weapons were provided by Saddam, a Baathist who was anti-Syrian in practice but who wanted to built a greater Syria (in theory at least) (which shows that the LF were pragmatic). My opinion is that Israel is truly sympathetic to LF and vice-versa because they see each other as victim of muslim/palestinians terrorism (if this is true is another issue). But each party has a different agenda and none is ready to put the other’s guy objective above his own.

To be short about LF-Israeli relations: tactical collaboration is a fact. Strategic collaboration is an issue.

--equitor 15:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)