The Guardian faces stiff competition for most sympathetic depiction of murderers


As Israel begins the process of releasing 104 pre-Oslo prisoners (all of whom were convicted of murder, attempted murder or being an accessory to murder) as a concession to the Palestinians to renew negotiations, it’s hard to avoid noticing the media’s sympathetic coverage of the perpetrators and their families, and their callousness towards the victims and their surviving family members.

We’ve commented on this previously, but the recent increase in pictorial coverage relating to the release of the first 26 prisoners requires greater focus.

The Independent, July 28

irish times

Caption:

The mother of Palestinian Ateya Abu Moussa, who has been held prisoner by Israel for 20 years, hugs her grandson upon hearing the news that her son may soon be released.

Irish Times, July 29

irish times

Caption:

The mother (R) of Palestinian Ateya Abu Moussa, who has been held prisoner by Israel for 20 years, reacts as she is hugged by her sister after hearing news on the possible release of her son. Abu Moussa was expected to be among more than 100 Arab prisoners to be released as a step to renew stalled peace talks with the Palestinians in Washington today. Photograph: Reuters

The Telegraph, Aug. 14. (Behind pay wall)

telegraph

Caption:

Palestinians wave flags and shout as they await the release of prisoners outside the Israeli prison of Ofer, near the West Bank city of Ramallah Photo: REUTERS

The Times, Aug. 14 (Behind pay wall)

A freed Palestinian prisoner, one of 26 to be released, reaches the Gaza Strip Suhaib Salem/Reuters

Caption:

A freed Palestinian prisoner, one of 26 to be released, reaches the Gaza Strip Suhaib Salem/Reuters

The Times, same story:

A small crowd of wellwishers cheered as the men entered Palestinian territory Suhaib Salem/Reuters

Caption:

A small crowd of well wishers cheered as the men entered Palestinian territory Suhaib Salem/Reuters

The Guardian: Here are three photos from their Picture Desk Live series on Aug. 13 and 14:

1

Caption:

The father and brother of Palestinian prisoner Ateya Abu Moussa, who has been held by Israel for 20 years, hug after hearing news of his expected release in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip. On Monday Israel named 26 Palestinian prisoners to be freed this week under a US-backed peace talks deal. Photograph: Ibraheem Abu Mustafa/Reuters

1

Caption:

Freed Palestinian prisoner Ateya Abu Moussa, who was held by Israel for 20 years, hugs his father upon arriving at his family’s house in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip. Photograph: Ibraheem Abu Mustafa/Reuters

Prisoner Release

Caption:

Palestinian people greet and celebrate freed prisoners who arrive in a bus at the Erez crossing between Israel and the northern Gaza Strip. Photograph: Ali Ali/EPA

Palestinians celebrate while waiting for arrival of released prisoners

Caption:

Palestinians wait the arrival of released prisoners near the Erez crossing. Israel released 26 Palestinian prisoners ahead of renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Photograph: Majdi Fathi/Demotix/Corbis

The Guardian: Finally, here’s a photo used to illustrate a story by Harriet Sherwood on Aug. 14.

Released Palestinian prisoner Nihad Jendeia is welcomed upon his arrival by his relatives in Gaza

Caption:

Released Palestinian prisoner Nihad Jendeia is welcomed upon his arrival by his relatives in Gaza city. Photograph: Mohammed Saber/EPA

Question: Can you quickly tell us what all of these photos and captions share in common?

Answer: None of these photos – featuring the perpetrators, their families and supporters – included even a word about the often barbaric crimes committed, nor anything about the victims or their surviving family members.  

If you’re interested in learning about the victims of the 26 prisoners, please see our post published on Aug. 12.

102 comments on “The Guardian faces stiff competition for most sympathetic depiction of murderers

  1. Those papers should be ashamed of themselves. There is a difference between attacking militant targets and butechering old men with your bare hands.
    sickening is a word that come to mind.

    • ” here is a difference between attacking militant targets ”

      Attacking targets in a crowded city using giant tanks or jets is hardly Horatio on the bridge is it ?

      • Let’s put it in a language you understand.
        Had Israelis went into those cities each and every time hunting those who fire from those crowded streets the death tolls would have been far greater.

        Now on the other hand, if the Palestinians you so much adore in the photos above would not kill those old men who were not of fighting age nothing would have happened.
        Funny how those who you defend had the option and time to choose other targets.
        young men all around them.
        But they chose the easy targets.
        Brave fecks aren’t they?

        We can forgive the Arabs and their supporters for killing our children.
        We cannot forgive them for having us kill theirs.
        That goes to you too Mr “we are the world” terrorist defender.

        Why don’t you go preach how there is no such thing as a nation or a religion and we are all one to the Iranians or the Pakistanis?
        I bet they’d listen.

  2. The photos and captions suggest that these prisoners had somehow been wronged and that their release is a corrective and victory for justice. Quite disgusting.

    • That’s the bottom line obscenity of this coverage. Let the editors of the Guardian deny that they provide comfort to terrorists and murderers. Imagine a paper showing Nazi murderers being embraced by their family members after having served their punishment without so much as a hint at their crimes. It is grotesque and perverse. These editors are the “post modernist” version of Der Sturmer no less.

  3. The Commission also concluded that Defense Minister Ariel Sharon bore personal responsibility “for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge” and “not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed”. Sharon’s negligence in protecting the civilian population of Beirut, which had come under Israeli control amounted to a non-fulfillment of a duty with which the Defence Minister was charged.[3] The commission recommended in early 1983 the removal of Sharon from his post as Defense minister and stated:
    We have found … that the Minister of Defense [Ariel Sharon] bears personal responsibility. In our opinion, it is fitting that the Minister of Defense draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office — and if necessary, that the Prime Minister consider whether he should exercise his authority … to … remove [him] from office.”[27]

    Sharon’s actions led to thousands of Palestinians being killed. Nobody, least of all Sharon has been brought to justice. The crimes of the Palestinian prisoners released are nothing compared to the willful neglect resulting in thousands of deaths of innocent men, women and children in Palestinian refugee camps

    • As much as I dislike Sharon, and my family do, asking Jews to take the fall for actions of Christian Arabs is a bit too much.

      What next, it’s the Jews fault that Germans invaded Poland?

      Almost as if you publicly say that Arabs can’t help themselves in behaving like animals.
      And you call Kouf a racist.

      Arabs are grown men and if some behave like animals by indulging in orgy of death there is little Jews can be held accountable for it.
      Same goes for the Syrians committing terrible brutal murders every day now.

      “The crimes of the Palestinian prisoners released are nothing compared to the willful neglect resulting in thousands of deaths of innocent men, women and children in Palestinian refugee camps”

      I suggest you file a law suit against each and every Arab country which built and managed those camps like pawn on a political chess board!

    • Robert Hatem, code-named “Cobra,” was Eli Hobeika’s security chief in the early 1980s. In 1999, he published an unauthorized biography of Hobeika, From Israel to Damascus, that was banned in Lebanon. Hatem brought to light new evidence about the role of Elie Hobeika in the massacres of Sabra and Shatilla:

      In the afternoon of September 16, 1982, before the Lebanese Forces entered the Palestinian refugee camps, “Sharon had given strict orders to Hobeika (who served as chief of intelligence for the Lebanese Forces) to guard against any desperate move, should his men run amuck.” Yet contrary to this advice, Elie Hobeika gave his own instructions to his men: “Total extermination…camps wiped out.”

      Elie Hobeika maintained a secret channel to Syria in 1982 and had meetings the same year with Abdul Halim Khaddam, who had served as Syria’s foreign minister. Hatem charges that Hobeika actually sought to serve Syrian interests by conspiring in the murder of President Bashir Gemayel and by his efforts “to tarnish Israel’s reputation world-wide” through Sabra and Shatilla. The massacres, in fact, created an entirely new strategic situation on the ground, forcing Israel to withdraw from the Beirut area and accept the insertion of international forces

      • If this is true it could may well be that the killing of Hobeika was carried out by Damascus to tie loose ends.
        It could may well be that the killing of Hariri was done as a resault of similar ideas.

  4. Perhaps the blogger would ponder on this – I have taken the liberty to alter the speech to put it in today’s context

    I am a Palestinian. Hath not a Palestinian eyes? Hath not a Palestinian hands,
    organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
    food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
    heal’d by the same means, warm’d and cool’d by the same winter
    and summer, as a Jew is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
    you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
    And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
    rest, we will resemble you in that.

    • So you’re taking Shylock– arguably the first Jew blood sucking stereotype developed in the Western world– and applying that to the Palestinians as if…. what exactly?

      Israel has offered a state to the Palestinians for the past 13 years. And you think we as a people don’t recognize the blood and bones of the Palestinians?

      Eat a bag of shit-covered dicks, okay?

    • Jason you left off the lines;

      “If we blow up your innocent Women and Children,
      Do we not hand out the sweets in celebration of having killed more Jews.”

    • JH:

      “…And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
      rest, we will resemble you in that.”

      Are you justifying Baruch Goldstein now?
      Boy you are a racist prick!
      You have something for murderers.

    • Shylock was the creation of a Christian mind. The irony of this attempted extrapolation is of course that Shylock never killed anybody, never breached any law, never threatened anybody. Palestinians are not Shylock by any stretch of the imagination. They created a covenant and they follow it with horrid deeds of murder, mutilation and pure hatred. If only they were like Shylock, who was so easily thwarted by a woman in drag.

      What a silly, sentimental cheap thing to say, Jason. Do you think your readers will reel back in wonder, overcome by pity? We are dealing with a culture of implacable hatred and bottomless violence and you try to morally equate them with Shylock?

    • Perhaps you would ponder on this, words of an Israeli .
      “I don’t feel one needs to apologize for defending one’s family. We are stationed at checkpoints for a reason. The moment I or my friends who serve in reserve units decide not stand at checkpoints is the moment a suicide bomber turns up at Sbarro’s Pizza in Jerusalem or at a nightclub in Tel Aviv. [I offered this apology because] there is a risk that Palestinians will come to believe only refuseniks or insubordinates want peace. But I seek peace no less than the insubordinates.”

  5. Kouf you exactly represent the racists who confronted Shylock – Of course Israel has but not on this planet. Eating shit-covered dicks okay I will – have eaten much worse from similar racists like you

    Oh by the way you have not really understood Shylock and Shakespeare if you think it is about race – it is about denial of race – it is about one humanity – you prick

    • I doubt Jason you even begin to understand Shylock or Shakespeare. You read a book and you know everything, is that it? I wish I could find the words to describe you properly, Thou foul and pestilent congregation of vapours.

  6. All Palestinians have to do is tell themselves that all they want to be is Palestinians, who no longer demonize and hate Jews, plot and scheme to murder Jews, or go out to kill any Jew they can get their hands on. If they learn to do that, peace will ensue in no time, and they will be able to live free of the need to leech upon the world’s scarce resources of pity, so that real victims of real humanitarian disasters can be helped. But they can’t do that. Do you know why? Because the core of their very identity is this hatred for Israel. If they let go of this existential necessity, what will they be?

    • Noga,

      I think you meant to say the Palestinian leaderships and factions.

      There are many Palestinians who could not care for fighting any more.
      These are either being silenced by their leaderships, factions, surroundings, host countries or have to flee abroad.

      One of the reason why the Palestinians hate so much the Israeli arabs is that they envy their ability to a diverse society where possibilities to elevate one self from the general cesspool of hate indoctrination and impasse of the status quo.

      • “There are many Palestinians who could not care for fighting any more.”

        Are there? I know of two: Sari Nusseibeh, and Khaled Abu Toameh, both of whom are marginalized to insignificance by Palestinian public. As long as Palestinians insist on RoR they will continue to foster their culture of hatred and violence. So far nothing -ever- happened to dissuade me from my opinion.

        They hate Israeli Arabs because they consider them traitors and collaborators. Some Israeli Arabs try to assuage this venomous hostility by radicalizing their positions, as we witnessed recently from one Israeli-Arab MK. Israeli-Arabs are very well integrated into Israeli society, most of them I believe are peace loving and care for the future of their children. But the efforts of radicalization are very intense.

        • “So far nothing -ever- happened to dissuade me from my opinion. ”

          That is very sad to hear.

          “Yaacov Edelstein and Yitzhak Ben-Sira tried to hide amongst a jumble of boulders and branches, but they were discovered by a “wrinkled, toothless, old Arab” who told them “Don’t be afraid.” Then a group of Arab irregulars rushed up and threw them against a wall. The old Arab tried to shield them with his body. As they argued, two Arab Legionnaires came up and took the two Jews under their protection.
          Nahum Ben-Sira, the brother of Yitzhak, was away from the main group when the massacre started. He hid until nightfall then escaped to a nearby kibbutz.
          Eliza Fauktwanger (Palmach) tried to hide in a ditch with several others. They were discovered and all were murdered except Eliza, who was dragged away by several Arab irregulars. As the group were trying to rape her, an Arab Legion officer (Captain Hikmat Mihyar) arrived, shot two of the perpetrators and sent the rest away. Afterwards the officer gave her bread, waited until she finished eating, and said to her (quote) “You are under my protection”.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Etzion_massacre

  7. Lets strip away the hype and break this down to its bare facts. Acknowledged murderers of Jews are being portrayed as heroes by the European press. Antisemitism has emerged from the shadows. It is now fully mainstream.

    Stan

    • Acknowledged murderers of Jews are being portrayed as heroes by the European press
      Not the first time and surely not the last.

  8. None of these journalists and photographers want these murderers as their neighbors. As long as they stay far away from their own beds and remain focused on killing Jews, they are great photo ops. Perhaps a chance for a World Press Photo of the Year award.

  9. Noga just because you have read Nazi literature and are fond of it does not mean you have to keep quoting from it. Try and be original – I thought Israel invaded Lebanon, Sharon was the Army Commander in charge and under his watchful eye the murder of over 4000 innocent men women and children took place. Of course he was implicated by the Israeli commission for these murders and it is alleged was involved in the killing of the Phalanges leader about to give evidence in the case against Sharon for these murders. So do not play the innocent. Facts will come to bite you.

    Of course Noga, the racist would argue we are confronted with barbarians, and unclean people we can hardly bear to see let alone smell and their eradication is justified. Well Noga is a racist and is wrong.

    • Note how Jason is incapable of writing even one short response without turning to ad homs. typical of someone who has to lie, distort, pervert and exaggerate consistently and reflexively in order to support his cause. He writes here:

      ” under his watchful eye the murder of over 4000 innocent men women and children took place.”

      If the number of victims were “only” 800 (BBC) or 1,700 (Robert Fisk) as some estimates suggested, or even if it went up to 3000 assuming the PRC’s estimates can be objectively trusted to reflect the truth (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=3789), it would still be a terrible atrocity but Jason cannot keep it real and true. He has to exaggerate the numbers to “over 4000″. Why is that, do you think? Why does he need to inflate the numbers?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre#Number_of_victims

  10. Channel 4 is doing a pretty good job of PR for the Muslim Brotherhood.Pretty much everything bar the cute puppy and the crying toddler.

    • ” Channel 4 is doing a pretty good job of PR for the Muslim Brotherhood ”

      Krishnan Guru murthy called out the Yanks by saying they refused to call it a coup. He then soberly considered the official stats of hundreds dead. However they were Muslims so hell mend them. Your post lacks even a tinge of humanity . Why am I surprised?

  11. So, censorship is free is all for the killing and mayhem as long as those killed are the Arab Barbarians – Sick or what censorship is free should be censored for his racism. By the way, I heard on the Radio 4 the spokesman for the murdering Egyptian army accused those shot dead by its soldiers of using children as human shields. Did censorship is free write the Egyptian Army’s narrative. Blame the victim why break the habit of a lifetime.

  12. And some acknowledged of culpability in massacres become Prime Ministers – What a horrible world we live in

    The Israel Defense Forces surrounded the camps and at the Phalangists’ request,[9] fired illuminating flares at night.[10][11] In 1982, a UN commission chaired by Sean MacBride concluded that Israel bore responsibility for the violence.[12] In 1983, the Israeli Kahan Commission, appointed to investigate the incident, found that Israeli military personnel, aware that a massacre was in progress, had failed to take serious steps to stop it. Thus Israel was indirectly responsible, while Ariel Sharon, then Defense Minister, bore personal responsibility, forcing him to resign.[13]

    Ariel Sharon went on to become the Prime Minister on Israel despite being declared culpable in the mass murder of Palestinian refugees by Israel’s own commission set to investigate the massacre under Israeli occupation.

    The world has remained silent.

    • White wash Hobeika, why don’t you.
      Maybe Sharon flew that night on his white stead into the camps and twisted Hobeika’s arm into making the killings?

      Maybe you’re full of shit.

    • Sharon’s mistake was in underestimating the levels of hatred, revengism and blood lust of the Phalangists, after the events that precipitated the massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damour_massacre#Events). It was a terrible lapse of judgment, unforgivable in the case of a military leader.

      Jason, your information comes from Israeli sources, and from the findings of the Kahan commission. Why do you feed on official Israeli sources to support your hatred of Israel?

      Very few people today know that Lebanese Christians and Palestinians were regularly and mutually massacred, that the PLO was deeply complicit, and that Sabra and Shatila was one massacre along a history of bloody and reciprocal gore.Why is that, Jason?

  13. Itsik another racist diatribe from you what has whiteness got to do with the massacre – it is not me it is the UN, The Israeli commission that accuses Sharon – and he accepted his culpability when he resigned as Defense Minister Can you not read or you willfully ignorant. Israel was occupying. Lebanon at the time. Israeli Defense force under Sharon deliberately looked the other way at the request of the murderers and when the case was brought up the leader of the murdering gang was alimented allegedly by the Israelis. Sharon did not fly anywhere. He stood there watched while the massacre of innocent men, women and children continued. Even if, like Nelson, he had a patch on his eyes he would have smelt the massacre. The murdering thugs do not need to twist anybody’s arms to do the killing. Sharon stands accused, he stands convicted by the Israeli commission and the UN. I can smell your virtual shit and it is very unpleasant.

    • JH:

      “Itsik another racist diatribe from you what has whiteness got to do with the massacre…”

      Not using punctuation marks again??? Is it you Rafi?
      You can at least ID yourself like a real person. Right Nat?

      Who said anything about Whiness?
      White wash is an English expression.

      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whitewash

    • And I was I racist?
      Please explain JH?
      Are you an internet bully?
      Throwing unfounded allegation at others?

    • JH:

      “the leader of the murdering gang was alimented allegedly by the Israelis.”

      Aaaah, did you spot it or was it too quick for you JH?
      Read again.
      Noticed it now?
      that little irritating word?
      Allegedly.
      know what that mean?
      You racist twat!
      treating Arabs like children rather than like equal men.

    • Jason if you use a myth to support a myth not only does your whole case collapse but frankly you look bloody ridiculous!

      You keep spouting the myth about Ariel Sharon being a war criminal. In an attempt to make some kind of point you write this myth, “Even if, like Nelson, he had a patch on his eyes” Nelson did NOT wear an eye patch.
      Obviously you know as much about Admiral Nelson as you do about Ariel Sharon – sod all!

    • Jason, Israel seems to be a canvas on which you can project your own fantasies and prejudices. Don’t you think its funny, a European like yourself, with ancestors dripping in Jewish blood, that you feel it your place to berate Jews and those who support the Jewish national liberation movement as ‘racists’. Racism runs in your blood dear Jason, your visceral hatred of Jewish projects is part of your culture, and just like your ancestors you hate Jews because you believe them to be the antithesis of your own self-proclaimed moral superiority. Your identity is meaningless without it.

    • No, the leader of the murdering gang Eli Hobeika was eliminated by the Syrian .

      “However, close Hobeika associates and family members recently revealed that, at that time, Hobeika had been more concerned with clearing his own name than with implicating Sharon in the massacres. Indeed, a Belgian senator who had met with Hobeika shortly before the latter’s assassination revealed to al-Jazeera on January 26, 2002 (two days after Hobeika’s assassination) that Hobeika had no intention of identifying Sharon (or Israel for that matter) as the responsible party in the Sabra and Shatila massacres. This leaves (as only remaining “person of interest”) Baathist Syria; a notoriously murderous regime that is showing its mettle in today’s Syria, and that had mastered to the hilt the skills of “arsonist-fireman” in Lebanon these past forty years.?

      • Alexa, who knows.

        “A group, Lebanese for a Free and Independent Lebanon, issued a statement after the assassination, claiming responsibility for the killing of Hobeika.[12] The group announced that it killed Hobeika, since he was a “Syrian agent” and an “effective tool” in the hands of Ghazi Kenaan, the then head of military intelligence.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Hobeika

        either way it fits the fact that he betrayed Israel for Syria.

  14. “… and he accepted his culpability when he resigned as Defense Minister Can you not read or you willfully ignorant.”

    Another lie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre#Sharon_.22personal_responsibility.22

    “At first, Sharon refused to resign, and Begin refused to fire him. It was only after the death of Emil Grunzweig after a grenade was tossed into the dispersing crowd of a Peace Now protest march, which also injured ten others, that a compromise was reached: Sharon would resign as Defense Minister, but remain in the Cabinet as a minister without portfolio. Notwithstanding the dissuading conclusions of the Kahan report, Sharon would later become Prime Minister of Israel.[47][48]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre#Sharon_libel_suit

    ______________
    ” Sharon did not fly anywhere. He stood there watched while the massacre of innocent men, women and children continued”

    Let’s see some reliable source that confirms this statement.

  15. Please Read – Honest Kahan was not commissioned by the PA or the Electronic Intifada just joking –

    but seriously, I am relying on the commission set by the Israelis that to say the least, was as lenient on the IDF as it could be without being obviously partisan. It was not just something that happened over a few minutes it lasted over 24 Hours.

    In 1983, the Israeli Kahan Commission, appointed to investigate the incident, found that Israeli military personnel, aware that a massacre was in progress, had failed to take serious steps to stop it. Thus Israel was indirectly responsible, while Ariel Sharon, then Defense Minister, bore personal responsibility, forcing him to resign

    • What you wrote was: ” Sharon did not fly anywhere. He stood there watched while the massacre of innocent men, women and children continued”

      Let’s see some reliable source that directly and unequivocally confirms this statement.

    • Jason Helper aka John Walsh, a new alias for our resident terror praising troll
      ranamirza to Rafi Mirza, from NSIsmail to Antisemite Rana won`t help you, antisemitic member of the Diane Shame Group of aliases like Mondoweiss Chris/Isac/ liar/Peter Ounce/Islamabadi/diane/dianeshammes/Angel/Rafi aka Nazisse Sharon/Jane/Catherine/Samantha aka HarpalSingh/AaronPatel/AnrewBird/Jeremy Bowles/AlanThornton/Jabal aka
      Alan/Deborah/Jim/Jason/Dirk/Nick/Natzie/Rob, amended by Gerald with Dopey/Grumpy/Sneezy/Sleazy/Tosser/Dorothy/Straw Man/Dick Head/Drek

  16. I have no evidence to say that Sharon did not fly. My obvious observation is that he lacks wings and without being rude about his built he would find it difficult to fly anywhere except in a mechanically propelled machine. Anyway, the Kahan commission is the one that said he did not fly anywhere and was was culpable in the massacre.

    By 1 September, the PLO fighters had been evacuated from Beirut under the supervision of Multinational Forces (MNF).[21][5] The evacuation was conditional on the continuation of the presence of the MNF to provide security for the community of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.[5] Two days later the Israeli Premier Menachem Begin met Gemayel in Nahariya and strongly urged him to sign a peace treaty with Israel. According to some sources,[22] Begin also wanted the continuing presence of the SLA in southern Lebanon (Haddad supported peaceful relations with Israel) in order to control attacks and violence, and action from Gemayel to move on the PLO fighters which Israel believed remained a hidden threat in Lebanon. However, the Phalangists, who were previously united as reliable Israeli allies, were now split because of developing alliances with Syria, which remained militarily hostile to Israel. As such, Gemayel rejected signing a peace treaty with Israel and did not authorize operations to root out the remaining PLO militants.[23]
    On 11 September 1982, the international forces that were guaranteeing the safety of Palestinian refugees left Beirut. Then on 14 September, Gemayel was assassinated in a massive explosion which demolished his headquarters. Eventually, the culprit, Habib Tanious Shartouni, a Lebanese Christian, confessed to the crime. He turned out to be a member of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and an agent of Syrian intelligence. Palestinian and Muslim leaders denied any connection to him.[24]
    Within hours of the assassination, Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, supported by Begin, decided to occupy West Beirut, informing only then Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir and not consulting the Israeli cabinet. The same night Sharon began preparations for entering the Sabra-Shatila refugee camps.[25] Thus on 15 September, the Israeli army reoccupied West Beirut. This Israeli action breached its agreement with the United States not to occupy West Beirut.[26]

    • JH (Nat):

      “I have no evidence to say that Sharon did not fly.”

      That’s not what Noga asked you.
      You said Sharon “stood there watched while the massacre of innocent men, women and children continued”.

      where did he stand?
      In Lebanon?
      All night?
      Liar!

    • What you wrote was: ” Sharon did not fly anywhere. He stood there watched while the massacre of innocent men, women and children continued”

      Let’s see some reliable source that directly and unequivocally confirms this statement.

  17. Another set of conclusions from several reliable sources

    The commission’s report, Israel in Lebanon, concluded that the Israeli authorities or forces were directly or indirectly responsible in the massacres and other killings that have been reported to have been carried out by Lebanese militiamen in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in the Beirut area between 16 and 18 September.[12]
    British journalist David Hirst accused the Israeli commission of crafting the concept of indirect responsibility so as to protect Israel from assuming full responsibility for the slaughter along with the Phalangists. He further states that the Commission was only able to achieve that verdict by means of errors and omissions in the analysis of the massacre.[46]
    Sharon “personal responsibility”[edit source | editbeta]
    The Kahan commission found that Ariel Sharon “bears personal responsibility”,[13]
    At first, Sharon refused to resign, and Begin refused to fire him. It was only after the death of Emil Grunzweig after a grenade was tossed into the dispersing crowd of a Peace Now protest march, which also injured ten others, that a compromise was reached: Sharon would resign as Defense Minister, but remain in the Cabinet as a minister without portfolio. Notwithstanding the dissuading conclusions of the Kahan report, Sharon would later become Prime Minister of Israel.[47][48]
    Other conclusions[edit source | editbeta]
    The Kahan commission also recommended the dismissal of Director of Military Intelligence Yehoshua Saguy[49]’,[50] and the effective promotion freeze of Division Commander Brig. Gen. Amos Yaron for at least three years

    • This is all tremendously fascinating, “Jason”, but can you please tell me what this has to do with the ghastly portrayal of the 26 convicted murderers being released as innocent victims (with the concurrent total blanking on the actual victims) currently being the trend in the Western media?

  18. Itsik you take the biscuit – complain about those released after serving decades in prison from crimes that nowhere near match the ones that Sharon is found guilty of by the Israeli Commission – The Israeli commission nowhere says allegedly in its findings.

    Let the world decide who is a racist. You are getting and angry and abusive because you know where the guilt lies. You should accept whitewashing the crimes of the Israeli state is not going to work. Sharon was found guilty by the Israeli commission. UN was even more condemnatory of the IDF and Sharon. It is only racists like you who continue to deny the crime and the culpability of the IDF and Sharon.

  19. Labenal You are right these 26 prisoners have nothing in common with Sharon. They were not convicted of the heinous crime Sharon was found culpable.Sharon stands accused of causing the deaths of thousands. by the Israeli Commission no less. Sharon has not served a single day in prison. So the differences between these 26 and Sharon are immense.

    Perhaps to you the thousands of innocent deaths in Sabra and Shatila camps are not the real victims because they are Palestinians to many of use they are the real victims of the occupation by Israel of Palestine and Lebanon.

    That is what defines a racist my criminal is a war hero yours is a damn right scum. Sorry I do not subscribe to racist ideology like you.

    • Logic according to “Jason”…

      Person A: “I love eating fish.”

      Jason: “So you callously admit you love eating fish. Ariel Sharon was pictured eating fish in 1982. Perhaps he was doing so at the very moment he was firing flares into the sky, handing machine guns to the Lebanese militia, personally ensuring their bottoms were well wiped and laughing maniacally as the Palestinians were massacred in the refugee camps. The Kahan Commission has convicted Sharon of being an evil madman, so by extension anyone who loves eating fish is condoning the unwarranted massacre of 50,000 innocent babies. You are a filthy racist and if the world has to choose between me and my logic or you and your filthy racism, I know they will support me, no matter how insane and cracked I may sound.”

    • “Labenal You are right these 26 prisoners” blah blah blah ad nauseam. What a ridiculous statement. But that’s what hate does to you, Jason – it causes you to lose all capacity for rational judgment.

  20. Itsik – I am getting annoyed with your frivolities. He stood on your ass as you looked the other way. Do you not remember?

    • “He stood on your ass as you looked the other way”

      So Itsik you not only steal the land, but also according to Jason’s post @11:05 AM you take his biscuits! And to top it all you are a contortionist.

      Itsik have you no shame?

      • I admit it!
        JH, it is me!
        I was the one calling a spade a spade.
        I called you Jason H a twat cause you are one!

        Now, kindly explain the below slander:
        “Itsik another racist diatribe from you what has whiteness got to do with the massacre…”

        Racist in what way please.

  21. Let it be noted that Jason was caught lying in two specific cases:

    The first, when he claimed that “over 4000″ Palestinians were massacred in Sabra and Shatila.What purpose do the exaggeration and inflating of number serve? Why would he need to lie about the number of dead? Aren’t 800 or 1700 large enough a number to merit our outrage?

    ” Sharon …stood there watched while the massacre of innocent men, women and children continued” and tries to avoid answering my request for some reliable source that directly and unequivocally confirms this statement by lobbing all sorts of red herrings.

    Lying, slandering, singling out, misrepresenting information, all these are evident and irrefutable. What good is a cause that needs this type of subterfuge to sustain itself?

  22. I will this blog has sunk so deep in the racist gutter it is hardly worth the bother so bye to all

    • Leaving so soon? I am sure you will be back before we all know it, with another amazingly bland name touting off some sort of biased worldview that, magnificently, blames the Jews for just about everything.

      We’ll know you as the guy in the shit-stained sheet that can be smelled for miles.

    • You failed to make any plausible case for your positions, Jason. Rather then learning something from these mistakes you choose to scuttle along as if YOU are the one much put upon. This sad pathetic ploy is a loser”s scorn, pure sour grapes fallacy, which does not even convince you of its veracity.

      • Good comment Noga except for
        “Rather then learning”
        Not “then,” but “than.” You’re going the opposite way from our ever name changing and incorrect usage of “than” troll.

    • Oh shame JH!
      Must you go?
      There’s so much more you can educate us in.
      Or is it time to clock out in Islamabad?

  23. Just to put the record straight, I have not given my figures on the Massacre in Sabra And Shatila camps that Sharon was implicated in. The figures are from the UN and The Israeli Commission. I have not accused Sharon of any crimes. The Israeli commission holds him responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacres. Keep lying I do not know who you are convincing with these lies or what you are serving by such vile statements. Perhaps you enjoy it. So continue.

  24. Pingback: Listan över de 26 palestinska fångarna som kommer att gå fria, och deras offer. | The Golani Spy

  25. It seems quite plausible that Jason does not understand the meaning of “Lie”.

    As he doesn’t understand the meaning of ” Sharon … stood there watched while the massacre of innocent men, women and children continued.”

    It seems a pretty straightforward statement. No ambiguity about what the author of these words was saying and intending to convey.

    If I say: Sheila stood there watching while her children were eating ice cream, there is no other way of understanding this statement except at its literal meaning.

    So what’s going on with Jason that he he types statements whose meaning he denies? does it mean he believes that 2+2 are 5?

  26. Jason Helper
    after John Walsh, a new alias for our resident terror praising troll
    The flight from ranamirza to Rafi Mirza, from NSIsmail to Antisemite Rana won`t help you, antisemitic member of the Diane Shame Group of aliases like Mondoweiss Chris/Isac/ liar/Peter Ounce/Islamabadi/diane/dianeshammes/Angel/Rafi aka Sharon/Jane/Catherine/Samantha/HarpalSingh/AaronPatel/AnrewBird/Jeremy Bowles/AlanThornton/Jabal/Alan/Deborah/Jim/Jason/Dirk/Nick/Natzie/Rob, amended by Gerald with Dopey/Grumpy/Sneezy/Sleazy/Tosser/Dorothy/Straw Man/Dick Head/Drek

  27. I think some of you have been having a tough at the hand of that resident troll – you might find interesting reading the following

    ON the night of Sept. 16, 1982, the Israeli military allowed a right-wing Lebanese militia to enter two Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut. In the ensuing three-day rampage, the militia, linked to the Maronite Christian Phalange Party, raped, killed and dismembered at least 800 civilians, while Israeli flares illuminated the camps’ narrow and darkened alleyways. Nearly all of the dead were women, children and elderly men.
    Enlarge This Image

    Edel Rodriguez
    Multimedia

    Interactive Feature
    Declassified Documents Shed Light on a 1982 Massacre
    Related in Opinion

    Times Topic: Middle East
    Opinion Twitter Logo.
    Connect With Us on Twitter
    For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
    Thirty years later, the massacre at the Sabra and Shatila camps is remembered as a notorious chapter in modern Middle Eastern history, clouding the tortured relationships among Israel, the United States, Lebanon and the Palestinians. In 1983, an Israeli investigative commission concluded that Israeli leaders were “indirectly responsible” for the killings and that Ariel Sharon, then the defense minister and later prime minister, bore “personal responsibility” for failing to prevent them.

    While Israel’s role in the massacre has been closely examined, America’s actions have never been fully understood. This summer, at the Israel State Archives, I found recently declassified documents that chronicle key conversations between American and Israeli officials before and during the 1982 massacre. The verbatim transcripts reveal that the Israelis misled American diplomats about events in Beirut and bullied them into accepting the spurious claim that thousands of “terrorists” were in the camps. Most troubling, when the United States was in a position to exert strong diplomatic pressure on Israel that could have ended the atrocities, it failed to do so. As a result, Phalange militiamen were able to murder Palestinian civilians, whom America had pledged to protect just weeks earlier.

    Israel’s involvement in the Lebanese civil war began in June 1982, when it invaded its northern neighbor. Its goal was to root out the Palestine Liberation Organization, which had set up a state within a state, and to transform Lebanon into a Christian-ruled ally. The Israel Defense Forces soon besieged P.L.O.-controlled areas in the western part of Beirut. Intense Israeli bombardments led to heavy civilian casualties and tested even President Ronald Reagan, who initially backed Israel. In mid-August, as America was negotiating the P.L.O.’s withdrawal from Lebanon, Reagan told Prime Minister Menachem Begin that the bombings “had to stop or our entire future relationship was endangered,” Reagan wrote in his diaries.

    The United States agreed to deploy Marines to Lebanon as part of a multinational force to supervise the P.L.O.’s departure, and by Sept. 1, thousands of its fighters — including Yasir Arafat — had left Beirut for various Arab countries. After America negotiated a cease-fire that included written guarantees to protect the Palestinian civilians remaining in the camps from vengeful Lebanese Christians, the Marines departed Beirut, on Sept. 10.

    Israel hoped that Lebanon’s newly elected president, Bashir Gemayel, a Maronite, would support an Israeli-Christian alliance. But on Sept. 14, Gemayel was assassinated. Israel reacted by violating the cease-fire agreement. It quickly occupied West Beirut — ostensibly to prevent militia attacks against the Palestinian civilians. “The main order of the day is to keep the peace,” Begin told the American envoy to the Middle East, Morris Draper, on Sept. 15. “Otherwise, there could be pogroms.”

    By Sept. 16, the I.D.F. was fully in control of West Beirut, including Sabra and Shatila. In Washington that same day, Under Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger told the Israeli ambassador, Moshe Arens, that “Israel’s credibility has been severely damaged” and that “we appear to some to be the victim of deliberate deception by Israel.” He demanded that Israel withdraw from West Beirut immediately.

    In Tel Aviv, Mr. Draper and the American ambassador, Samuel W. Lewis, met with top Israeli officials. Contrary to Prime Minister Begin’s earlier assurances, Defense Minister Sharon said the occupation of West Beirut was justified because there were “2,000 to 3,000 terrorists who remained there.” Mr. Draper disputed this claim; having coordinated the August evacuation, he knew the number was minuscule. Mr. Draper said he was horrified to hear that Mr. Sharon was considering allowing the Phalange militia into West Beirut. Even the I.D.F. chief of staff, Rafael Eitan, acknowledged to the Americans that he feared “a relentless slaughter.”

    On the evening of Sept. 16, the Israeli cabinet met and was informed that Phalange fighters were entering the Palestinian camps. Deputy Prime Minister David Levy worried aloud: “I know what the meaning of revenge is for them, what kind of slaughter. Then no one will believe we went in to create order there, and we will bear the blame.” That evening, word of civilian deaths began to filter out to Israeli military officials, politicians and journalists.

    At 12:30 p.m. on Sept. 17, Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir hosted a meeting with Mr. Draper, Mr. Sharon and several Israeli intelligence chiefs. Mr. Shamir, having reportedly heard of a “slaughter” in the camps that morning, did not mention it.

    The transcript of the Sept. 17 meeting reveals that the Americans were browbeaten by Mr. Sharon’s false insistence that “terrorists” needed “mopping up.” It also shows how Israel’s refusal to relinquish areas under its control, and its delays in coordinating with the Lebanese National Army, which the Americans wanted to step in, prolonged the slaughter.

    Mr. Draper opened the meeting by demanding that the I.D.F. pull back right away. Mr. Sharon exploded, “I just don’t understand, what are you looking for? Do you want the terrorists to stay? Are you afraid that somebody will think that you were in collusion with us? Deny it. We denied it.” Mr. Draper, unmoved, kept pushing for definitive signs of a withdrawal. Mr. Sharon, who knew Phalange forces had already entered the camps, cynically told him, “Nothing will happen. Maybe some more terrorists will be killed. That will be to the benefit of all of us.” Mr. Shamir and Mr. Sharon finally agreed to gradually withdraw once the Lebanese Army started entering the city — but they insisted on waiting 48 hours (until the end of Rosh Hashana, which started that evening).

    Continuing his plea for some sign of an Israeli withdrawal, Mr. Draper warned that critics would say, “Sure, the I.D.F. is going to stay in West Beirut and they will let the Lebanese go and kill the Palestinians in the camps.”

    Mr. Sharon replied: “So, we’ll kill them. They will not be left there. You are not going to save them. You are not going to save these groups of the international terrorism.”

    Mr. Draper responded: “We are not interested in saving any of these people.” Mr. Sharon declared: “If you don’t want the Lebanese to kill them, we will kill them.”

    Mr. Draper then caught himself, and backtracked. He reminded the Israelis that the United States had painstakingly facilitated the P.L.O. exit from Beirut “so it wouldn’t be necessary for you to come in.” He added, “You should have stayed out.”

    Mr. Sharon exploded again: “When it comes to our security, we have never asked. We will never ask. When it comes to existence and security, it is our own responsibility and we will never give it to anybody to decide for us.” The meeting ended with an agreement to coordinate withdrawal plans after Rosh Hashana.

    By allowing the argument to proceed on Mr. Sharon’s terms, Mr. Draper effectively gave Israel cover to let the Phalange fighters remain in the camps. Fuller details of the massacre began to emerge on Sept. 18, when a young American diplomat, Ryan C. Crocker, visited the gruesome scene and reported back to Washington.

    Years later, Mr. Draper called the massacre “obscene.” And in an oral history recorded a few years before his death in 2005, he remembered telling Mr. Sharon: “You should be ashamed. The situation is absolutely appalling. They’re killing children! You have the field completely under your control and are therefore responsible for that area.”

    On Sept. 18, Reagan pronounced his “outrage and revulsion over the murders.” He said the United States had opposed Israel’s invasion of Beirut, both because “we believed it wrong in principle and for fear that it would provoke further fighting.” Secretary of State George P. Shultz later admitted that “we are partially responsible” because “we took the Israelis and the Lebanese at their word.” He summoned Ambassador Arens. “When you take military control over a city, you’re responsible for what happens,” he told him. “Now we have a massacre.”

    But the belated expression of shock and dismay belies the Americans’ failed diplomatic effort during the massacre. The transcript of Mr. Draper’s meeting with the Israelis demonstrates how the United States was unwittingly complicit in the tragedy of Sabra and Shatila.

    Ambassador Lewis, now retired, told me that the massacre would have been hard to prevent “unless Reagan had picked up the phone and called Begin and read him the riot act even more clearly than he already did in August — that might have stopped it temporarily.” But “Sharon would have found some other way” for the militiamen to take action, Mr. Lewis added.

    Nicholas A. Veliotes, then the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, agreed. “Vintage Sharon,” he said, after I read the transcript to him. “It is his way or the highway.”

    The Sabra and Shatila massacre severely undercut America’s influence in the Middle East, and its moral authority plummeted. In the aftermath of the massacre, the United States felt compelled by “guilt” to redeploy the Marines, who ended up without a clear mission, in the midst of a brutal civil war.

    On Oct. 23, 1983, the Marine barracks in Beirut were bombed and 241 Marines were killed. The attack led to open warfare with Syrian-backed forces and, soon after, the rapid withdrawal of the Marines to their ships. As Mr. Lewis told me, America left Lebanon “with our tail between our legs.”

    The archival record reveals the magnitude of a deception that undermined American efforts to avoid bloodshed. Working with only partial knowledge of the reality on the ground, the United States feebly yielded to false arguments and stalling tactics that allowed a massacre in progress to proceed.

    The lesson of the Sabra and Shatila tragedy is clear. Sometimes close allies act contrary to American interests and values. Failing to exert American power to uphold those interests and values can have disastrous consequences: for our allies, for our moral standing and most important, for the innocent people who pay the highest price of all.

    • Alfred thank you for your kind thought.
      However nobody here has a tough time with our resident retard irrespective of the name he uses.
      It is sad to see how someone can constantly post lies, fabrications and total distortions of the truth and expect that no one will notice or challenge it.

      But, sadly, there are those in the World who wouldn’t recognise the truth if it bit them on the arse as they walked by. Our resident retard is one of those sad cases.
      I wonder what name he will use next, he does tend to try and use European names probably because he speaks English like a native, a native of Mars that is.

    • A bit strange, this copypaste

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/a-preventable-massacre.html

      The article contains a lot of specultations. paricularly concerning the MNF and its mission.
      Firstly the author chosed to ignore (or doesn`t even know?) of the simultan bombing of the French troops, causè it would discredit her construed causality with Shabra and Shatila.
      Secondly the involvement of the USA into the Lebanese civil war, by firing f.e. from the warships on positions of the Druze militia, before the bombing.
      Thirdly she ignores the presence of the Iranian RC and that the main culprit of the bombing was an Iranian, not a Palestinian.

      Other speculations concern the presumably full control of Western Beirut by the 16th of Septembre when deploying the troops on the 15th of Septembre 1982 whatever is meant by “full control” in Beirut at this time.
      The Initial anger of the USA and the discussion on 16th Septembre concerned the break of the armistice after the murder of Gemayel, not the Lebanese Forces which the author chosed to confound.
      The quarrel between Sharon and the US american Ambassador clearly shows that Sharon meant to kill the militants, not civilians, and this was the issue, not the massacre of innocent civilians.
      The report stated this, whatever others try to implicate:

      http://cifwatch.com/2013/08/11/harriet-sherwood-parrots-false-charge-of-water-apartheid/comment-page-1/#comment-133437

  28. Don’t you find it odd that Jason and Alfred talk about Lebanon hours before a car bomb explodes in Beirut?

    They must have something to do with it.

    (This was a sarcastic example of JH logic).

  29. I think even Fisk does not quote the figure of 4000. I do not know where the troll got it from. Any way the last line in Fisk’s article expresses everything

    quotation from Rabbi Abraham Heschel who raged against the Vietnam war. “In a free society,” the Rabbi said, “some are guilty, but all are responsible.”

    The memories remain, of course. The man who lost his family in an earlier massacre, only to watch the young men of Chatila lined up after the new killings and marched off to death. But – like the muck piled on the garbage tip amid the concrete hovels – the stench of injustice still pervades the camps where 1,700 Palestinians were butchered 30 years ago next week. No-one was tried and sentenced for a slaughter, which even an Israeli writer at the time compared to the killing of Yugoslavs by Nazi sympathisers in the Second World War. Sabra and Chatila are a memorial to criminals who evaded responsibility, who got away with it.

    Khaled Abu Noor was in his teens, a would-be militiaman who had left the camp for the mountains before Israel’s Phalangist allies entered Sabra and Chatila. Did this give him a guilty conscience, that he was not there to fight the rapists and murderers? “What we all feel today is depression,” he said. “We demanded justice, international trials – but there was nothing. Not a single person was held responsible. No-one was put before justice. And so we had to suffer in the 1986 camps war (at the hands of Shia Lebanese) and so the Israelis could slaughter so many Palestinians in the 2008-9 Gaza war. If there had been trials for what happened here 30 years ago, the Gaza killings would not have happened.”

    He has a point, of course. While presidents and prime ministers have lined up in Manhattan to mourn the dead of the 2001 international crimes against humanity at the World Trade Centre, not a single Western leader has dared to visit the dank and grubby Sabra and Chatila mass graves, shaded by a few scruffy trees and faded photographs of the dead. Nor, let it be said – in 30 years – has a single Arab leader bothered to visit the last resting place of at least 600 of the 1,700 victims. Arab potentates bleed in their hearts for the Palestinians but an airfare to Beirut might be a bit much these days – and which of them would want to offend the Israelis or the Americans?

    It is an irony – but an important one, nonetheless – that the only nation to hold a serious official enquiry into the massacre, albeit flawed, was Israel. The Israeli army sent the killers into the camps and then watched – and did nothing – while the atrocity took place. A certain Israeli Lieutenant Avi Grabowsky gave the most telling evidence of this. The Kahan Commission held the then defence minister Ariel Sharon personally responsible, since he sent the ruthless anti-Palestinian Phalangists into the camps to “flush out terrorists” – “terrorists” who turned out to be as non-existent as Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction 21 years later.

    Sharon lost his job but later became prime minister, until broken by a stroke which he survived – but which took from him even the power of speech. Elie Hobeika, the Lebanese Christian militia leader who led his murderers into the camp – after Sharon had told the Phalange that Palestinians had just assassinated their leader, Bashir Gemayel – was murdered years later in east Beirut. His enemies claimed the Syrians killed him, his friends blamed the Israelis; Hobeika, who had “gone across” to the Syrians, had just announced he would “tell all” about the Sabra and Chatila atrocity at a Belgian court, which wished to try Sharon.

    Of course, those of us who entered the camps on the third and final day of the massacre – 18 September, 1982 – have our own memories. I recall the old man in pyjamas lying on his back on the main street with his innocent walking stick beside him, the two women and a baby shot next to a dead horse, the private house in which I sheltered from the killers with my colleague Loren Jenkins of The Washington Post – only to find a dead young woman lying in the courtyard beside us. Some of the women had been raped before their killing. The armies of flies, the smell of decomposition. These things one remembers.

    Abu Maher is 65 – like Khaled Abu Noor, his family originally fled their homes in Safad in present-day Israel – and stayed in the camp throughout the massacre, at first disbelieving the women and children who urged him to run from his home. “A woman neighbour started screaming and I looked out and saw her shot dead and her daughter tried to run away and the killers chased her, saying “Kill her, kill her, don’t let her go!” She shouted to me and I could do nothing. But she escaped.”

    Repeated trips back to the camp, year after year, have built up a narrative of astonishing detail. Investigations by Karsten Tveit of Norwegian radio and myself proved that many men, seen by Abu Maher being marched away alive after the initial massacre, were later handed by the Israelis back to the Phalangist killers – who held them prisoner for days in eastern Beirut and then, when they could not swap them for Christian hostages, executed them at mass graves.

    And the arguments in favour of forgetfulness have been cruelly deployed. Why remember a few hundred Palestinians slaughtered when 25,000 have been killed in Syria in 19 months?

    Supporters of Israel and critics of the Muslim world have written to me in the last couple of years, abusing me for referring repeatedly to the Sabra and Chatila massacre, as if my own eye-witness account of this atrocity has – like a war criminal – a statute of limitations. Given these reports of mine (compared to my accounts of Turkish oppression) one reader has written to me that “I would conclude that, in this case (Sabra and Chatila), you have an anti-Israeli bias. This is based solely on the disproportionate number of references you make to this atrocity…”

    But can one make too many? Dr Bayan al-Hout, widow of the PLO’s former ambassador to Beirut, has written the most authoritative and detailed account of the Sabra and Chatila war crimes – for that is what they were – and concludes that in the years that followed, people feared to recall the event. “Then international groups started talking and enquiring. We must remember that all of us are responsible for what happened. And the victims are still scarred by these events – even those who are unborn will be scarred – and they need love.” In the conclusion to her book, Dr al-Hout asks some difficult – indeed, dangerous – questions: “Were the perpetrators the only ones responsible? Were the people who committed the crimes the only criminals? Were even those who issued the orders solely responsible? Who in truth is responsible?”

    In other words, doesn’t Lebanon bear responsibility with the Phalangist Lebanese, Israel with the Israeli army, the West with its Israeli ally, the Arabs with their American ally? Dr al-Hout ends her investigation with a quotation from Rabbi Abraham Heschel who raged against the Vietnam war. “In a free society,” the Rabbi said, “some are guilty, but all are responsible.”

    • Now Alfred you are starting to annoy me.
      It takes a while to clean the vomit off my keyboard anytime I see the name of that hack Fisk!
      Please don’t use his name again as I’m starting to run out of cleaning wipes for my keyboard.

    • “In a free society,” the Rabbi said, “some are guilty, but all are responsible.”

      Nonsense. This type of sanctimonious moralism serves those who will go to a great deal of trouble proving that Israel is a criminal entity. It intends to say: In Israel (a free society) one minister may have been criminally negligent but all Israelis are responsible, all Israelis are complicit. There are not many people who know who the actual perpetrators were; it is a received “wisdom” that Israelis committed the atrocities. The same way that people believe that there was massacre in Jenin. Your version of the events, alfred, and the way you adorn your prose with emotive, accusatory, suspicious adjectives and adverbs, are meant to divert from the criminals to Israel, and nothing Israel could say or do can be regarded as just; you even dare impeach the integrity of Kahan commission.

      I prefer Hannah Arendt’s insight when she said: If all are responsible, then nobody is responsible. Exactly. Arabs committed the atrocities, they raped, they murdered, they killed. And they were forgiven by their fellow-Arabs, while Israel stands accused of this heinous crime. Very few know this, thanks to your kind of justice-seekers.

      • Correct Noga!
        I’d like to remind Alfred and Mr. Fisk the following to teach him a thing or two about Israelis:

        “”We had been demonstrating ever since 1978. If police had called previous demonstrations 100,000, this was indeed four times that,” she asserted, in reference to challengers of the widely quoted number of 400,000, who claim it to be an exaggeration. The rally later became known as “the march of 400,000,” a staggering number bearing in mind that this constituted 10% of the population at the time, and was utterly unprecedented. Indeed, with the exception of last summer’s social justice protests, there hasn’t been anything on that scale since, Golan noted.”

        http://www.jpost.com/Features/In-Thespotlight/This-Week-In-History-Masses-protest-Sabra-Shatila

        I’d like to remind you that the UK biggest ever protest was estimated between 750,000 – 2,000,000 which does not reach 5% of population at best.

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2765041.stm

    • “quotation from Rabbi Abraham Heschel who raged against the Vietnam war. “In a free society,” the Rabbi said, “some are guilty, but all are responsible.””

      What a sanctimonious hypocrite! F__k him.

      • I went to a Day School named after Rabbi Heschel. To consider one line of a quote and seeing him as a hypocrite is like taking a comment from Alfred and considering it honest and true.

        It’s all about context.

        AJH was a great man who taught us how to be better humans. He did not preach violence and was definitely against the war in Vietnam. And, as history has proven, there were a lot of reasons to stand up against that blunder of foreign policy.

  30. Noga give us a break

    Shortly after dark on September 16, 1982, small units of Christian militiamen, about 150 men each, began entering the narrow alleyways of the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps from their staging ground at Beirut’s international airport.

    From that Thursday evening until the following Saturday morning, about 2,000 of the militiamen, known as Phalangists, liquidated all traces of humanity in the camps.

    According to Red Cross estimates, up to 1,000 unarmed men, women and children were shot, hacked and trampled to death.

    The immediate cause of the massacre was the assassination two days earlier of the Lebanese president Bashir Gemayel, a Maronite Christian and a patron of the Phalangists, by a member of a pro-Damascus political party.

    The proximate cause, however, was Israel’s oft-repeated demand to their Christian militia allies in Lebanon that they “clean out” West Beirut of Palestinians, as Israel’s then-defence minister, Ariel Sharon, put it. Although it has never been established conclusively that Israeli officers ordered the militias into Sabra and Shatila, the killers entered the camps with Israel’s knowledge and approval.

    Israeli forces also put up a cordon around Sabra and Shatila as the killing took place and lit up the night-time sky above the camps with flares to facilitate the “clean-up”.

    More critically still, as later official Israeli investigation showed, Israeli military officers were fully aware of the thirst for revenge that fuelled the militiamen following Gemayel’s death. Despite their involvement in the bloodletting in Sabra and Shatila, no Lebanese or Israeli has ever been prosecuted for the killings there.

    Read more: http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/sabra-and-shatila-defenceless-victims-were-butchered-by-militiamen#ixzz2c4axU4NN
    Follow us: @TheNationalUAE on Twitter | thenational.ae on Facebook

    • “… no Lebanese or Israeli has ever been prosecuted for the killings there.”

      So in your legal universe, IDF soldiers serving in Lebanon during the war should have been prosecuted for the massacre of Muslim Arabs by Christian Arabs?

      • Of course they should, Noga.

        You know that famous aphorism, “If an Arab dies and it can’t be blamed on Israel, is he really dead?”

  31. Pingback: The Tripod: CAMERA Links in Three Languages | In Focus

  32. ” Israeli military officers were fully aware of the thirst for revenge that fuelled the militiamen following Gemayel’s death. ”

    What does that mean? That Israeli military officers are therefore culpable for the massacre and should be prosecuted for it? According to this logic, almost every Palestinian (or other Arabs who hate Israel) are culpable and complicit in any terrorism acts perpetrated against Israelis, because surely they are “fully aware of the thirst for revenge that fuel”s those Palestinians who cut the throats of Israeli babies and perpetrate lynchings against old men and children.

    • I like you post. Just one thing going back to the topic of this page. According to likes of Guardian , Alfred and friends it is not a terrorist act just a fight for freedom act .

  33. Pingback: The Tripod: CAMERA Links in Three Languages – August 14-15th edition | BBC Watch

  34. Alfred definitely brings up the issue in order to defend the Palestinian terrorists mentioned in the article and to deflect from the fact that the Phalange militia carried out the massacres.
    If he is honest he would call for the prosecution of the milita, but this isn`t his aim, that`s why he copypastes a doctoral thesis aspirant published by the NYT.

  35. Pingback: 8/15 Links Part 1: Justice for None, PA Honored the Murderers of 238 Israelis during Ramadan | Bydio

Comments are closed.