Talk:Sabra and Shatila massacre
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Sabra and Shatila massacre is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles. |
| NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
 |
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Lebanon, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Lebanon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
 |
This article has been mentioned by a media organisation: | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Archives |
|||
|
Contents |
[edit] Nazisrael?
Are there any pictures of those badges? I can't seem to find one.
[edit] 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'<nowiki>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.
~~~~ John E08.57 okt 28. (gmt)
[edit] Info and links
- The Cause for Invasion
- "The goal was to remake the political landscape—to drive out the Palestine Liberation Organization and install a right-wing Christian Lebanese leader prepared to sign a peace deal with Israel. But Operation Peace for Galilee ended in failure." [1]
- "Israel launched operation "Peace for Galilee" and invaded Lebanon in 1982 in what was sold to the Israeli public as a bid to drive the Palestine Liberation Organization back from the northern border. Sharon went on to drive the PLO out of Lebanon and to try to install a more friendly regime there. ... The Israelis stayed, and their effort to install a new regime ended in disaster." [2]
- The Invasion was planned
- "When, in early June 1982, terrorists of the Abu Nidal organization, a PLO splinter group, badly wounded the Israeli ambassador in London during an assassination attempt, Israel seized the pretext for launching its long-planned offensive." [3]
- The Invasion was opposed by the US and the UN:
-
- See "U.N. Security Council Resolution 509"
- "On June 6, President Reagan, in France to meet with the G-7 Heads of Government at the Versailles Economic Summit, dispatched Habib to Israel to try to restore the cease-fire. That same day the United States joined a unanimous U.N. Security Council Resolution demanding that Israel withdraw from Lebanon and that the border cease-fire be observed by all parties." [4]
- Other details:
- "September 15, 1982: Ariel Sharon arrives in Beirut to personally direct the IDF campaign ... The IDF launches sporadic shellfire at Sabra and Shatila." [5]
- "September 15, 1982: An Israeli divisional intelligence officer, providing an update briefing on the situation in the camps, reports to the Chief of Staff: "It seems there are no terrorists there, in the camp; Sabra camp is empty." (Kahan Commission Final Report, p. 24).
- "Two Israeli paratroopers tell correspondent Michael Gerti: On Thursday evening, as darkness fell, Palestinian women from Shatila arrived at the post and hysterically told us that the Phalangists were shooting their children and putting the men in trucks. I reported this to my commander, but all he said was: 'It is okay, do not worry.' My order was to tell the women to go back home. However, many women, and entire families as well, ran away from the camps to the north. I went back and repeated my report over and over. Each time, however, the answer was the same: "It is okay."...It was possible to stop the massacre in Shatila, even on Thursday; had they acted on what we reported to our commander. (Ha'aretz, September 23, 1982)."
HistoryBuffEr 05:25, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
[edit] "Terrorists"
Why aren't the 'militia' correctly labeled as terrorists? Or does that term only refer to Muslims? (anon 12 July 2005)
- You will notice that the only times the word "terrorist" appears in the article are in quotations. Wikipedia usually avoids this word, except where attribution of the accusation (because it almost always is an accusation) is clear. But I would agree that balance would dictate that if a quotation from an appropriate source describes the militia as "terrorists", it should be included in the article.
- Ironically, the word "terrorist" is rarely used with reference to such well-organized groups, and when you get to the level of national armies, it is hardly used at all, though they are certainly as capable of terror as anyone else. This is part of why it is usually a word to avoid. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
- True. Serbian militia at sebrenica are rarely labeled as terrorists, so does US behaviour in central America in the 80's. I think that the term is always used for small clandestine group. Some morally reprenhesible actions are not labeled terrorist as long as the group is not clandestine. This is unfortunate but it's a fact. Another example: syrian shelling on east beirut during the 80's are never called terrorist because it's open. But the car bombs that were most probably ordered by Syria through proxies are systematically referred to as terrorist.--equitor 17:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hobeika's fiancée raped?
I was working on the biography on Elie Hobeika and I found this interesting story that I did not heard of previously. It says that Hobeika fiancé was raped and killed in Damour. Fisk says that it happened in 75 but other sources on the internet say it's in 76, during damour's massacre. Other sources say that Hobeika lost some of his relatives in Damur. Does somebody know anything about this?
I kept the story unchanged in the article, but I would like some data on it to be sure. --equitor 16:55, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Why not TWO entries?
There are two opposing views here, that of Noam Chomsky and his supporters who follow the "Israeli-devil" theory, and everyone else.
Why not two entries, one the follows the theory of Israel is devil, that all evil in the world stems from Zionist plot, and the other that doesn't?
By the way, did the Kahan Commission know about Hobeika's treachery? Just a question.
Treachery is alleged on the basis of Robert Hatem's book (the book can be read on the internet). Also, Alain Mernargues says that on the 14th of September (the day Bachir died) a group of Israeli inspectors who were in charge of training Bachir's security came to Beirut. Menahem Navot, a high ranking mossad officer was with them on the same plane. The instructors were told by Hobeika's men to go away and 'never come back' (BTW Hobeika was the head of LF security and was managing Gemayel's personal security). Navot tried to reason the guys but Bachir died a few moments later (I think the instructors were still arguing with Hobeika's men). Menargues got the story directly from Navot but I don't know if it does mean anything. This prompted consipiracy theories in Beirut saying that Hobeika knew about the killing and was afraid that the Israelis would later blame him for their instructors deaths (blaming being an eupemism for assassination). Alain Menargues book is the most authoritative book I ever read on the 82 invasion as he know a lot of person on all sides and is a very respected journalist - unfortunately the book is not translated in english. I can compare him only to Charles Enderlin. He also asserted that the first unit to enter Sabra and Chatila on D-day was an Israeli commando unit : according to Menargues the commando's role was to enforce the coverfew and 'terminate' PLO activist, not massacring the population. The last element is the fact that Hobeika was Syria's protégé from 85 to 99. This was strange as Hobeika was extremely unpopular with christians (because he became pro-syrian) and muslims (because of the massacre) and had no popular basis. Concerning the Kahan commission, I don't think that they knew any of this at the time, except Navot's story, but I don't think it was enough to link Hobeika in 1982. --equitor 13:01, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Friday would have been the 17th, no?
"On Friday, September 16, while the camps still were sealed off…" was recently changed to "On Friday, September 18, while the camps still were sealed off…" In fact, I believe, Friday would have been the 17th. But I have no idea whether this actually happened on Friday. Someone who has more actively worked on these materials should probably sort this out. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:43, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] TIME libel trial 82-84
I added detail. Libel trial focused on the secret meeting, not an accusation that he was responsible for massacre event. The linked articles also contain detail of some other charges Sharon made including alleged TIME's bias against jews and israel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.229.254 (talk • contribs) 6 February 2007.
[edit] Ext. Links
"Sabra and Chatila Massacres After 19 years, The Truth at Last?" By Robert Fisk, The Independent, November 28, 2001.
[edit] Massaker
I want to hear an explanation as to why this documentary must be considered a reliable source for this article. Beit Or 19:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- The way that the information is attributed, directly quoted and identified from a single source, to a large degree negates the needs for a slew of reliable sources. If the statement was just "Israel participated in the massacre", then of course there would be a need for numerous reliable sources. However, this is specifically stating that "In the film Massaker, six former soldiers stated that Israel participated in the massacre" (paraphrased), which is a far less contentious statement, and requires few sources to confirm it (as the film itself can be easily verified). If your question is whether or not this film actually exists, that can be easily verified from articles and film reviews such as this one or this one, and its IMDB entry here. Hope that helps. ← George [talk] 19:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
