Talk:Sabra and Shatila massacre/Archive 2

Hebrew arabs?
There are Eye Witness accounts that the supposed Maronite Christians on the ground during this massacre spoke fluent Hebrew and a little English, and where unable to speak Arabic or Aramaic. One Such Eye-Witness is Dr. Swee Chai Ang, who was a witness in the Kahan Commission of inquiry.


 * I've read testimonies saying this. But these are probably Israelis as very few kataeb operatives speak hebrew. (source: Alain Menargues, les secrets de la guerre du Liban - a well documented that was published a couple of years ago). According to Menargues, Israeli commandos and SLA members took part to the killings. If it's the case, it's very plausible that there were shia between the SLA because some of the victims reported hearing a distinct south-Lebanese accent and shia make up to half the staff of the SLA. Maronites in south Lebanon don't have this accent. It could be Lebanese druzes, Israeli druzes or more plausibly south-Lebanese Shia. According to Menargues Israeli commandos were in charge of executing palestinians in two circumstances: I enforcing the coverfew (meaning shooting bystanders which were numerous because of the number of people trying to) and II finding and executing PLO/Palestinian militants (which is not the same thing than fighters: it included journalists and political staff). From what I know, this is not substantiated by the Kahan commission (which doesn't mean that it's not true).
 * Menargues does not accredit Robert Hatem thesis (that Hobeika took part to Bashir killing's and the massacres were plotted by Syria and Hobeika in order to discredit Israel). But he says the on september 14th, when a group of Israeli (implying that Hobeika knew about the bachir's bombing and that he was afraid the he would be accused by the Israelis to be responsible of their deaths). --equitor 16:38, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

It's also not stated that those who tried to escape the camp were denied  exit from the IDF (who were, supposedly, there for their protection). --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 13:03, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * yes this is mentionned in the book: as I said the Israeli units had 2 objectives A- enforcing the curfew (which means shooting people who tried to escape or who were on the streets - I don't know if there was any warnings before the shooting) and killing blacklisted PLO militants (according to Alain Menargues)--equitor 03:39, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Uri asks why I deleted "anarchist" from the description of Noam Chomsky here, and also put the word back. Two points: (1) Whether Chomsky is an anarchist (as an aside, he describes himself as a "libertarian socialist" and draws an equivalence with anarchism) is irrelevant to the quote given; (2) The term "anarchist" is a complex and usually misinterpreted label, and often applied as a means of discrediting a speaker, in much the same way as labels are applied in irrelevant contexts (eg "Bob the satanist says Coca Cola is better than Pepsi" or "Fred the communist says ".


 * Chomsky has been known for a last time for a series of political views, that are most often classified as "anarchist". His writings stem out of his political philosophy; therefore it is important to mention his political platform to describe them properly.

Given the general bias in the ME pages of Wiki, I believe that (2) is the reason for its inclusion here. Certainly it adds nothing to the quote presented, in which case one does have to ask the questions: Why mention it? If the deleted adjective is not intended to convey some meaning, why re-place it after deletion? And, finally, if the meaning is not (2), above, then it must be (1), in which case: What does this add to the quote from Chomsky which is so important it needs stating and preserving by calling him an "anarchist"?


 * As I said earlier, the question of Chomsky's being an anarchist is of importance here. There's an important difference between the examples you brought above and the question with Chomsky: Bob's religious and Fred's political views are irrelevant to their position with regard to Pepsi; on the other hand it is obvious that Chomsky's political views have an influence on his historical analysis. --Uri

This is not a trivial point - it is merely a subtle aspect of the more general bias visible throughout Wiki's middle east pages.

Call him leftist, then. It covers both socialism and anarchism. (I haven't followed the debate, so I don't know if his political inclinations are relevant or not.) -- GayCom


 * Don't left-wing politics promote a more powerfull state? This would seem to be the opposite of anarchism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.134.13 (talk • contribs).
 * No, that is something of a misunderstanding of the meaning of "left" (though a common one in America, because of Cold War rhetoric). Louis XIV of France was a strong statist and centralist, though I think no one would say that somehow made him part of "the left". Similarly, Charles de Gaulle. Conversely, almost everyone agrees that the divisions in the Spanish Civil War can (except, perhaps, for the Basques) be described as a left/right divide, but the anarchists were firmly on the side of the Republic, the left, and the CNT even chose to compromise their principles by actively participating in government in the face of what they perceived as a fascist threat: their leftism trumped their anti-statism. - Jmabel | Talk 18:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Chomsky's political views are not simply leftists; they are widely considered extreme leftist; now I don't care whether it's anarchist or not, but I think it would be against the truth to describe him as a moderate (by default), whereas he's really a radical. --Uri

What's the deal with the spelling? I have only seen "Shatila." Could someone explain (in the article) why there are two spellings (or transliterations), and why one is prefered over the other? Slrubenstein


 * "Shatila" is a more faithful transcription; the Arabic original does not have a shadda over the [l] so it's short. "Chatila" is merely the French rendition of the same name. --Uri

Without getting into the politics, can we then agree to at least change the spelling from French to English? Danny


 * I agree. --Uri


 * ditto Slrubenstein


 * The report included the evidence of Israeli army personnel, as well as political figures and Phalange officers. In the report, published in the spring of 1983, the Commission stated that there was no evidence that Israeli units took part in the massacre or were even were aware of it.

The last part is not true. The Kahan commission recorded lots of evidence that Israeli forces and even some Israeli politicians knew of the massacre while it was still going on. When I get a chance I'll quote from the report itself. -- bdm

Could someone add that the Belgian case has recently been withdrawn following a law change (one of the parties involved should actually be related to Belgium in some way, and furthermore the complaint should not target any foreign leader in exercise). I didn't find the original news report but here are two alternative sources: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indictsharon/message/137 http://www.truthnews.net/world/2003090075.htm

This article is *very* POV. I will be putting in some edits when I have time, but for now, I will restore some of the links that were removed by vandals (pointing to Chomsky and anti-Sharon sites... go figure...).

Oh, and Chomsky is *NOT* a "radical leftist" (which implies Communist), he is a social Anarchist. Anarchism is about as diammetrically opposed to Communism as you can get. Considering that the vast majority of the world is overwhelmingly opposed to US/Israeli militarism and aggression, I don't think it is anywhere near accurate to describe Chomsky's views as "radical". --Gatto 19:40, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm, without getting into the "leftist" issue, if Chomsky (and indeed "social Anarchism") isn't "radical" then it is hard to imagine who or what is. In any event, please read from the top of this Edit page down, the issues of Chomsky's politics and radicalism have already been discussed. Jayjg 03:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The sentence "While the dead included innocent civilians, many if not most were armed fighters" gives the impression that the Palestinian casualties were largely combatants. How can this be consistent with the facts stated further down the article, that the massacre was committed by just 150 Phalangists, who suffered only two casualties?


 * Indeed. I have deleted: "While the dead included innocent civilians, many if not most were armed fighters." as it is simply untrue and there is not one shred of evidence to support the claim. As has been mentioned, this article is highly POV and needs re-writing. I am unsure whether Robert Fisk is a radical liberal, certainly people in the UK don't use that political description, it's a N. American term which is unused in Britain. A more important point, however, is that the assumption appears to be that the politics of individuals either validates or invalidates their words. In a serious article such notions, surely, have no place. Is everyone to be given a politcal label?
 * It should also be pointed out that Fisk was one of a group of 3 journalists who were the first to enter the camps, in fact not all the Phalange had, at that point, moved out.
 * It should also be pointed out that the SLA were also involved.

John Ball 30/07/04 9:30'

Hi Jayjg. I see that You have removed my remark Pirs replay and my response to him from this page and wonder why. I thought the meaning with this page was to communicate regarding the articles or am I wrong? John


 * Hi John. Actually, I've just moved the current conversation down to the bottom of the page, where it's easier to find.  I also had some trouble trying to locate this (your latest) comment and respond to it.  I'll leave this conversation here, but it makes things much easier if you put new conversation at the bottom of the page. Also, I strongly recommend getting a userid; they're free. Jayjg 07:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Links
I think that the link: Damour (http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/hobeika_damour/hobeika_damour.html) Damour massacre is unnecessary as it does not relate directly to the article, perhaps an article on the Damour Massacre itself is necessary though?

Also this link: From Israel to Damascus (http://www.israeltodamascus.com/index.htm) – a book written by Elie Hobeika's bodyguard that includes the description of how Hobeika carried out the massacre. Seems to be not working, I would like to delete these, any objections? Please advise.

Joseph E. Saad (August 5th, 2004)


 * Thanks for noticing that, I've fixed the links. Jayjg 21:54, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * No problem you are welcome, but why the Damour massacre link, I am puzzled? - Joseph E. Saad (August 5th, 2004)


 * I'm not sure, but I believe it was put in there as an example of a similar massacre in Lebanon during the same timeframe, and perhaps as contributing to the Phalangist rationale for the Sabra and Shatila Massacre. Jayjg 01:44, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Well I suspect, but have no proof, that it was put there to diminish the tragedy that was this massacre, by showing the PLO or Palestinians in a bad light. In any case I will leave it, but still feel quite strongly that it should be moved to a better spot, namely an article that deals with that particular massacre. I guess what does it matter anyway? There have been so many massacres, and killings in the Middle East, what a legacy that will be left for the future generations. Thanks for the input, and cooperation.Joseph 08:23, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

"At one time it was a radio question aimed at Elie Hobeika asking what to do with the women and children and intercepted by an Israeli liaison officer (he replied "This is the last time you're going to ask me a question like that, you know exactly what to do", Phalange troops at the spot laughing having heard that)"

Could someone provide me a s source for this communictions?


 * A bit of googling reveals that it may be from a transcript of the BBC Panorama programme "The accused":

"''The Israelis had a forward command post about 200 metres away which overlooked the camps. There were Phalangists stationed on the roof with the Israelis.  It was around this time, 7 o'clock on Thursday evening that an Israeli officer stationed on the roof overheard a deeply troubling conversation.  He was standing close to Elie Hobeika, the Leader of the Phalange operation.   A soldier inside the camps came on the radio.  He told Hobeika he was holding 50 women and children.  What should he do with them?  Hobeika replied "That's the last time you're going to ask me a question like that. You know exactly what to do". There was raucous laughter from the other Phalangists.  The Israeli officer reported this to his superior, General Amos Yuron.  There would be more worrying reports to the Yuron, but beyond warning Elie Hobeika not to harm civilians the General took no further action that night.  Ariel Sharon was now at a cabinet meeting in Jerusalem.  Ministers heard the Phalange were now in the camps.  Deputy Prime Minister David Levy was deeply troubled.''" - pir 19:36, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Norwegian observers
I've tried to add some information regarding events in Sabra and Shatila-story. Jayjg seems to be very eager to have them removed and I wonder why. I'm new to Wikipedia so the editing might not be according to the rules and in that case I'd appreciate any advice. John (user 80.91.33.33) 0410.04. 09.20 gmt


 * Hi John, there's nothing wrong with your editing, but this article touches a subject that is very sensitive for some. Maybe you could provide a source for the information you added, and the names of the journalist and diplomat? - pir 12:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Pir. My name is John Harbo and I worked as a correspondent for a Norwegian paper in Beirut at the time, so I am the source for the information given. I was myself in the camp on friday, on time alone and the other together with charge d'affares Gunnar Flakstad at the Norwegian embassy. As You see from what I added the observations we did in the camps were limited, but I added it because it supplements the information given later in the article that the first journalists entered the camps on saturday morning. In addition at least one american journalist entered the camp friday afternoon. I'll try to check his name and give it to You. This information can be checked by looking at the chapter "Direct responsibility" in The Kahane report. regards John 04.10.04 14.50


 * Hi John. As pir says, the article is controversial at best, so any additions need to be attributed.  Also, it would be preferable if you got yourself a User name. Jayjg 18:53, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. Sorry. I didn't check at the bottom. Thought the page were divided into different subjects so that here was one discussion running regarding the events and another on the links to this article. Have also got a user id as You recomended. And by the way: the american journalist that also observed the Phalangists on friday was Loren Jenkins of The Washington Post. John E


 * Great. Now, what would you like to include, and why is it relevant?  Please note that your existing edit does not mesh well with the existing text, and in particular contradicts some of it.  Including the names of the journalists etc. would be helpful.  Please bring the text here for discussion first before including it.  Also, please sign your edits with four tilde signs like this: ~ Jayjg 15:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

the additional information I want to include is in line with what I have proposed earlier. It is relevant becase the information given in the article refers only to israeli soldiers as eywitnesses. The persons I refer to are, as far as I know, the only idependent observers that actually entered the part of the camps that the phalangists controlled (they did not controll the entire camp-area), during the time of the massacers. Jaijg says it does not fit in with the existing text and contradicts part of it. As far as I see it contradicts only the statement that the first journalists were allowed into the camps on saturday. That is correct, but still the fact remains that a few managed to enter on friday. Its a difference between beeing allowed to enter and manage to pass the israeli-controlled lines during a military situation. Jayjg recommends that the names om the journalists and the diplomat should be included. This been an encyclopedia I feel that the focus on the identity of the persons mentioned is not needed - as long as it is given on this discussion-page - and accepted as valid.

I suggest the following add, placed after the existing sentence: Others reportet what they were witnessing to their superiors.

On friday, while the camps were still sealed off, a few independent observers managed tho enter. Among them were foreign journalists and one diplomat, a Norwegian. They observed Phalangists during their cleaning up operations, removing dead bodies from destroyed houses in the Shatila camp.

Then the article can continue with: Phalangists kept coming to the israelis for food............ If the content is accepted on the basis of the information given, I feel this text-change should fit in, but I'm of course open to other suggestions. ~ John E


 * As it is, it's anonymous; Encyclopedias mention individuals all the time. If you can include the names of the individuals, and produce some outside confirmation that it actually happened (aside from essentially anonymous comments on a Talk: page) then I have no problem with it. Jayjg 15:03, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The changes I have proposed is anonymous as it will appear in the article. According to my opinion this fits in with the style used in this article. Major actors as to what took place - Hobeika, Yaron and Sharon - is mentioned by name. Other witnesses - like individual israeli soldiers observing part of the massacers - is not named. Jayjg calls the information given on the talk page as essentiallly anonymoous. I have given my name and professsional background. That should explain my position for beeing in the camps, observing what I did on that friday. I was twice in Shatila. Both times encountering the phalangists and was ordered to leave. The incident were the phalangists were observed busy clearing out dead bodies, took place when I was together with the Norwegian diplomat, mr. Flakstad. He is now dead. As I mentioned earlier, my information can be verified by a reference to it in the rapport given by the Kahan-commision. It was also inluded in a documentary made by the ABC-network on the massacers. I hope this additional information is enough to verify the information I try to include. John E


 * I can't locate the information in the Kahan commission report (here is a link ); can you show me where it is please? Jayjg 17:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the chapter named "The Direct Responsibility" there is a pharagraph referring to testimony given by foreign doctors and health personell regarding the identity of the troops in the camp. At the end it says that my testemony to the commission confirms this information. John E 08:30 25 Oct 2004 (GMT)


 * John, the testimony in the Kahan commission report refers to you confirming the identities of two individiuals, not the Phalangists clearing out dead bodies. Have I missed something? Jayjg 21:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is what the report says: "Therefore, the testimony of these three witnesses also indicates that the only military force seen in the area was a Phalangist one. A similar conclusion can be drawn from the statement of Norwegian journalist John Harbo (no. 62)." It means that my testimony confirms the identity of the soldiers observed in the camps. Regarding the fact that I observed the phalangists clearing out dead bodies, You have to take my world for it. To be quite honest I can not see why that should be so difficult. It should be an established fact that the phalangists were in the camps.

John E 07:00 26 Oct 2004 (GMT)


 * Right, but it's not an established fact that you saw them clearing out bodies; as much as I believe you, Wikipedia doesn't really take "you have to take my word for it" as a legitimate reference. Jayjg 19:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * We're going to see this more and more, though as Wikipedia becomes more important. We need a way to deal with things like this, and it seems that our "no original research rule" (and our rule against "sutobiography") really do become problematic here. John, have you ever published any of this anywhere? That would solve the problem: assuming you are who you say you are, you are certainly a quotable source and we could just quote what you've written elsewhere. The (perverse) problem is that we really have no way currently to accommodate someone coming forward like this with (presumably valid, but previously unpublished) eyewitness material. - Jmabel | Talk 22:52, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * John's statement does not change any material facts. His presence is acknowledged by the report and he also mentioned an ABC broadcast. So, what's the fuss about him posting his account? Are you guys trying to install yourself as self-appointed approvers of every word related to Israel? If so, you may want to reread WP editing rules, which require no prior approval from anybody. HistoryBuffEr 02:06, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)


 * Prove the poster is John Harbo. Once you've done that, we'll move on to the other issues. Jayjg 02:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * This from the many who just chided me (on Talk:History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) for my skepticism? In any event, I've raised the question on the Village Pump of how we can deal with material like this. If the material is already published elsewhere (e.g. in a Norwegian newspaper) we can just cite that and this is simple, but if not? As I say, we probably need to solve this problem in general. This is a great test case.


 * John, am I correct that you are the John Harbo who writes for Aftenposten? In which case can we settle this by having our skeptic, Jayjg, email you at jon.harbo@aftenposten.no to confirm that you are this person and you can reply to him? Jay, I assume that you are not so skeptical as to doubt that [] establishes that Aftenposten has a reporter by that name with this email address. And, John if that's not who you are, is there some other newspaper, etc. that you are connected to through which we could similarly validate that you are how you say you are?


 * Still, Wikipedia as an institution needs a better way to handle this sort of thing. Sorry to be putting you through this sort of hassle. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:16, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, WP needs a solution for the problem that any clueless dweeb can override an expert here, but that's another issue. This guy here just wants to add one largely immaterial and harmless sentence, and I see no need to submit him to colonoscopy over it. HistoryBuffEr 06:40, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, we need a solution for the problem that "any clueless dweeb can override an expert", but I believe we need a solution for the problem I was pointing up, as well. Do you disagree? Because I don't think I wrote anything here to deserve the tone of your response that starts out by saying "yes" and then turns into an attack (maybe on me, maybe on Jay, I really can't tell in the midst of the sarcasm). -- Jmabel | Talk 23:50, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey, bad coffee day? :) My comment was about WP in general, not directed at you. HistoryBuffEr 00:19, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

I agree that the information I try to add is minor and should be harmless. But since there is so much debate regarding it I'll try to solve the two major problems it has caused. Regarding my identity. I am working for Aftenposten and the link given is to one of my articles on the net. Several others can be found if You do a google-search and in addition search for Aftenposten within the results. Also: any of You might send en e-mail to my adress: john.harbo@aftenposten.no and I'll confirm it.

Regarding publication of my observations. Its done in an article in Aftenposten on sept. 20th. It's for obvious resons not on the net and its not in the papers electronical base, only on paper. Whats written about my observations on friday here is the following. "When we tried to drive into the camp on friday we were stopped by soldiers  which were busy collecting and removing dead bodies." I can get a photo-copy of the article, which is in norwegian, and fax or mail it to for example Jayjg. I also have a copy of the ABC program on vhs-tape. I could find it and post a quote of my statement there which regards the observation I have tryed to add in the wikipedia-article. Then any of You could contact ABC and the might perhaps be helpful and check the program if they have it in their files. If this is not acceptable I'm open to other suggestions to settle this dispute.

John E 08:50 27 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Jay, I repeat: given that we seem to have established that this is, indeed John Harbo, can we consider this settled?

John, just put the information in the article and cite your own article Aftenposten article. Aftenposten is a perfectly valid source, the fact that you are the same person who wrote the article does not make it less so. Cite your sources explains the appropriate way to cite a magazine or newspaper article. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:50, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no reason to doubt John Harbo's account, but I take exception to the premise that Aftenposten is a perfectly valid source. The editorial platform is blatantly hostile toward anything Israeli, though it has gotten somewhat better with the new editor-in-chief Matre.  --Leifern 23:45, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)


 * It works for me, though it still doesn't solve the problem of "clueless dweebs" over-riding experts. ;-) Jayjg 02:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The ariticle itself is now protected so I post my proposed add and reference here as a start.

"On friday, while the camps still were sealed off, a few indpendent observers managed to enter. Among them a norwegian journalist and a norwegian diplomat which observed Phalangists during their cleaning up operations, remowing dead bodies from destroyed houses in the Shatila camp". (Referred in article in the newspaper Aftenposten sept. 20th. 1982 written by its Middle East-correspondent John Harbo, which were also qouted with the same information on ABC News "Close up, Beirut Massacers", broadcasted Jan. 7th. 1983).

I'we suggested earlier where it could fit in, so if the content and attrution to Aftenposten and ABC is done correctly, then the dispute should be solved. (By the way I'm not sure weather the attribution to the publishes sources should be part of the article, or not. The little trick with the pointed arrow just seems to work with web-quotations.)

And finally to clarify. This is what was said in the ABC-program, which were made by Bill Redeker. His voice: "20 hours after the Phalange occupied Sabra and Chatila a Norwegian journalist tries to enter but is blocked by a bulldozer, its scoop filled with bodies." Then my statement on camera describing the situation: "The bulldozer appears from the right side, from a side street. It backs into the main street and faces us. And then we see the grab filled with dead bodies. If it was full it would be about 8 to 10 bodies". John E 15:58 28 Oct 2004 (GMT)


 * (In Wikipedia MoS format and good English) add at the appropriate place in the flow of text:


 * On Friday, while the camps still were sealed off, a few independent observers managed to enter. Among them were a Norwegian journalist and a Norwegian diplomat, who observed Phalangists during their cleanup operations, removing dead bodies from destroyed houses in the Shatila camp". [Harbo, 1982]


 * Then down in the reference section:


 * Harbo, John, (September 20, 1982). ideally get actual article name here. Aftenposten. Middle East correspondent Harbo was also quoted with the same information on ABC News "Close up, Beirut Massacres", broadcast January 7, 1983.


 * Jmabel | Talk 05:19, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I asume Jayjg also agrees, so that the add can be posted when the article again is open for editing?

John E 09.52 29 Oct 2004 (GMT)


 * Looks good to me. The following paragraph should also be revised to remove the contradiction about when journalists first entered the camp. Jayjg 17:33, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lebanon invasion
Re. the dispute of ''The PLO had been using Lebanon as a staging grounds for attacks on Israel's northern border, and on that pretext Israel justified its invasion of southern Lebanon on June 6, 1982. ''
 * vs.

The PLO had been using Lebanon as a staging grounds for attacks on Israel's northern border, and in response Israel invaded southern Lebanon on June 6, 1982.

Noam Chomsky writes in Fateful Triangle that the actual reason/pretext for the invasion of Lebanon given at the time was the assassination attempt against Israeli ambassador Shlomo Argov in London by Abu Nidal. Abu Nidal was a rival to the PLO at that time, in fact he had been condemned to death by the PLO ; at the trial of the three members of the Abu Nidal team, the commander was later found to be an Iraqi secret service agent. Also, during the time preceding the invasion, there were apparently almost no PLO attacks on Israel (two if I remember well). I can look up some references if you like. - pir 23:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * That would be helpful, pir. Noam Chomsky is an unreliable source about everything except linguistics. Jayjg 14:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Another gratuitous and unsubstantiated slap against the credibility Noam Chomsky. Is this opinion based on disagreements with his anti-Zionist politics or is it just anti-semitism? In any case, I suspect that he is a more reliable source than a Wikipedian editor. Alberuni 14:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Let's maintain a collegial tone please. - pir 15:11, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm dismayed; I thought we were starting on a new footing, Alberuni. Did our discussion yesterday mean nothing? Jayjg 15:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, was that too antagonistic? You should be free to slander Noam Chomsky and dismiss authors whom you dislike and no one should dispute your baseless accusations. But at least we will have a collegial atmosphere. Alberuni 16:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course it was too antagonistic; good faith would recognize that. Dismissing Chomsky as an unreliable source is not the same thing as attacking you.  See more below. Jayjg 17:04, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Regarding the pretext for invasion, there are many sources that contend that Israel's massive invasion of Lebanon (and other military activities) were/are driven more by Israel's insatiable thirst for water (much like America's insatiable thirst for oil drives military policy) and desire to control Litani River water resources, not by sporadic and militarily ineffective provocations of PLO militants.    Alberuni 14:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Alberuni, I think you are conflagrating the official pretext with the real reasons driving the war. Let's not go into the "real reasons" stuff at this point, otherwise we'll get into a huge edit conflict (it would be more appropriate to discuss it in the Operation Peace for Galilee article anyway). Let's just deal with the pretext for now. - pir 15:11, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Very wise, pir. "Real reasons" discussions aka Conspiracy theory discussions, tend to get heated. Jayjg 15:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Which is why the article should describe the "reason" as the "stated reason" the "purported reason" the "ostensible reason": or the "pretext" -- because it wasn't the real reason. Alberuni 16:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * "Stated reason" is the only NPOV descriptor of that lot. "Pretext", "purported", and "ostensible" all imply that the "real" reason was something else. Jayjg 17:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chomsky appears to be quite reliable in this case at least. Although Fateful Triangle has only a couple of general refernces at this point (how the start of the invasion was reported in the US press), a quick google search reveals that this version of the events is widely accepted:


 * Chomsky : "Having failed to elicit the desired PLO reaction, Israel simply manufactured a pretext for its long-planned invasion of June 1982, claiming that it was in retaliation for an attempt to assassinate the Israeli Ambassador to London; the attempt, as Israel was aware, was carried out by the terrorist Abu Nidal organization that had been at war with the PLO for years and did not so much as have an office in Lebanon."
 * "[Abu Nidal's] most famous attack on an Israeli came in June 1982, when three gunmen seriously wounded then-ambassador Shlomo Argov in London, giving Menachem Begin's government the excuse it needed to implement then-defense minster Ariel Sharon's plan to invade Lebanon and push the PLO out of Beirut. Told it was Abu Nidal's men, not Arafat's, who shot Argov, then-chief of staff Rafael Eitan was reported to have said, "Nidal, Shmidal, they're all the same." (Haaretz, 2004 )
 * "[Abu Nidal's] organization attempted to assassinate Israel's ambassador to Britain, Shlomo Argov in June 1982. The attack on Argov, which left him seriously injured, triggered then-defense minister Ariel Sharon's invasion of Lebanon, which aimed to repel Palestinian forces controlled by Yasser Arafat. Abu Nidal's group had broken from Arafat's Fatah organization years before and had even plotted attempts on Arafat's life." (Haaretz, 2002 )
 * "A suspected attempt by Abu Nidal gunmen on the life of Israel's ambassador to Britain in 1982 triggered Israel's massive invasion of Lebanon that year." (BBC, 2002 )
 * "In 1982, Abu Nidal gunmen shot and critically wounded Israel's ambassador in London. Israel blamed Arafat's PLO and launched a huge invasion of Lebanon, driving Arafat and his forces out of the country." (USA today, 2003 )
 * "June 3, 1982: Attempted assassination of Shlomo Argov, Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom. The attack will trigger the war Israel waged in Lebanon against the PLO presence." ( International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, (Israel) )

Interestingly, and as is often the case, the Israeli press is more open as to the deceitful character of the official pretext - I guess hasbara is mainly for the US media. We'll have problems writing this up in a NPOV yet factually accurate manner ;) - pir 15:06, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll dig up some more info about PLO attacks on north ISrael prior to the invasion later - sorry no time now. -pir 15:14, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Regarding Chomsky's reliablity in general, I recommend reading this, or if you have more time, this: . Chomsky is a POV warrior who would make most Wikipedia POV warriors look like rank amateurs by comparison. Jayjg 15:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Regarding "Chomsky's writings on the Arab-Israeli conflict [which] are a mass of distortions, misrepresentations and plain falsehoods" please see this: . Jayjg 17:04, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sources for 700-800 deaths
Israeli figures, based on IDF intelligence, cite a figure of 700-800, a similar figure was released by Lebanese authorities and most Western sources.

How similar are the figures? Which "Lebanese authorities"? And why should Western sources matter, unless they counted bodies? This needs to be fixed. ----style 15:32, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
 * AGREED. There is an unfortunate tendency to credit "Western" and Israeli sources as if they are above suspicion while "non-Western" accounts are dismissed as "unverifiable". See, for instance, Votes_for_deletion/Operation_Days_of_Penitence_Fatalities  Alberuni 16:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer to VFD. --style 16:51, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)


 * "Estimates of the number killed range from 460 according to the Lebanese police, to 700-800 calculated by Israeli intelligence. Palestinians claim 3,000 to 3,500 dead and call the action "genocide"."   "The International Red Cross report of the incident indicates only 328 confirmed deaths, while more liberal estimates put the total at about 700. "  "More than 800 people were killed or went missing in a three-day killing spree by Lebanese Christian militiamen allowed into the camps by Israeli soldiers. Some estimates, however, put the death toll at 1,800. "  "857 Pal. & Leb. k. by Christian militia in Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in 1982."  "The exact death toll for the massacre remains unknown: estimates vary from 800 and 2 ,000."  "Estimates of the death toll range from 700 to 2,000. "  Jayjg 17:01, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Palestine Facts is a mickey mouse, partisan website. It's claims will need to be verified. The Campus Times letter is just wrong. The IRC buried at least 1000. The ABC news article isn't an important source. Did ABC count bodies? The other sources state ranges, but not whether Israeli, Western or Lebanese (Christian or Muslim) sources actually made the claims. I need to know exactly who made the estimates, not just the range of estimates. Currently the article states that Lebanese and Western sources claim only 700-800 deaths. You have not sufficiently supported this. --style 17:24, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)


 * Apparently the IRC stated 328 confirmed deaths; why do you think they "buried at least 1000"? Also, the Lebanese police stated 460.  Your opinions about the validity of other sources are interesting; thanks for sharing them.  I don't see you subjecting the higher estimates to the same rigorous inspection or conditions. Jayjg 17:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The book by Bayan Nuwayhed al-Hout I cited is IMHO, based on a very quick read, a fine, careful and scholarly work and probably is / will become the standard scholarly reference. Her minimum estimate of 1300 seems very solid (She gets 1390 from adding the names on many missing / deaths lists corroborated with other evidence and then eliminating thousands of duplicates, and then generously subtracts an estimated 90 based on the number of  missing in various lists who later turned up.)  The lower estimates' (ca. 500) unlikeliness is demonstrated, e.g. by taking their number of children killed ( <10%) and pointing out that many more children's corpses are shown in single photographs, provided in the book.--John Z 03:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The IRC numbers of confirmed deaths are low because they did not reach the scene until several days later by which time most of the bodies had already been removed Thomas Friedman notes this in his book "From Beirut to Jerusalem". In addition to this he suggests on pg. 163 (for my copy at least) that red cross officals estimated 800-1000 dead. I also would not trust Lebanese police sources because due to the civil war it is likely that they fudged numbers for political reasons. Bored college student 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

United Nations General Assembly
We say "On December 16, 1982 the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide," but the source is secondary, maybe tertiary. Does anyone have a more solid citation for this? I've looked and can't find a chain of citation back to the resolution itself. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:26, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Funny, the UNGA Resolution A/RES/37/123(A-F) is the first Google link if you simply highlight "December 16, 1982 the United Nations General Assembly" above and google it. HistoryBuffEr 06:39, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)


 * Yes, I already resolved this in the article I was really working on (with you), I didn't think to come back here and comment. It was because I'd added search terms and didn't coincide with them on the spelling of one, because I had followed your spelling. Anyway, once this is unprotected, let's get the better citation into the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:05, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Once again cut
The following seems to have been once again cut: On December 16, 1982 the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. Sharon resigned as defense minister, but later became Israeli Prime Minister. As remarked above, probably not the best citation (the first sentence here should cite the one HistoryBuffEr supplied) but the content seems factual and relevant. Is there any objection to restoring this? And if so, on what grounds? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:39, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

When information of the UN-condemnation and Sharons resignation is given in this way it seems to imply that they are connected. Would it not be more correct to say something like: On December 16, 1982 the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. After beeing criticized by the Kahan-commission Sharon resigned as defense minister, but later became Israeli Prime Minister. ~ John E 10.39 (GMT) Nov 9.

I have no problem with that minor change. I will edit accordingly reinsert. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:09, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC) Looks like someone beat me to it. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:11, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

The parties responsible, however, cited much lower numbers.
"The parties responsible, however, cited much lower numbers."? This recent insertion makes no sense; neither the Lebanese police nor the Kahan commission were responsible for massacre. In any event, it's not up to Wikipedia to assign blame; rather, the sources should be listed, and the reader should draw his or her own conclusion. Also, the sources of the ICRC claim have been deleted, as have the sources cited by the Kahan commission. I'm going to restore the version which simply listed the various estimates and sources. Jayjg 15:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apology
For mistakenly reverting the page to a User page. --Viriditas 03:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

flipping back and forth between two radically different versions
Right now, we have two sides flipping back and forth between two radically different versions. This is like the Monty Python "Argument sketch". Simple alternating contradiction is not going to move things forward. I strongly recommend that someone list the specific issues that are currently in contention so that some sort of focused discussion can occur. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:51, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Right. One version closely resembles the stable version that has existed here for months.   The other is a radically new version, essentially a completely new POV re-write by HistoryBuffEr.  This is his consistent pattern, and he should know by now that he needs to propose his changes in Talk: first to gain consensus before trying to force them on the page.  And I agree, he should indeed list the specific issues in the existing article that he disagrees with so some sort of focussed discussion can occur. Jayjg 02:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Who are you kidding? There's never consensus when Jayjg is involved. --Alberuni 04:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Summary of HistoryBuffEr's edits
Added "with assistance of Israel".
 * Intro:

Just rephrased for readability and clarified claims. Main points:
 * Background
 * Previous version (falsely) implied that 100,000 victims came about solely from infighting. Added Israeli invasions.
 * Attributed some obviously Israeli claims to Israel.

Mainly rephrased for readability and clarified claims. Main points:
 * Events
 * Israel reoccupied Beirut after the PLO forces left Beirut as agreed breaching firm guarantees ...
 * Clarified relationship Israel-Phalangists.
 * Added claim that Israel's claim of presence of PLO in the camps was a cover story (cited reference.)
 * Added that "the Israel military actively assisted" Phalangists (which is obvious from facts presented).
 * Added Harbo's tidbit.
 * Added NPOV "X claimed" to several statements.
 * On number of victims: cited all claims presented, leading with (presumably neutral) ICRC.
 * Added the UNGA statement.
 * Added Kahan commision para.


 * Israel's role in the massacre
 * Renamed from "Allegations against Israel". These are not mere allegations, this has been investigated and judgments made.
 * Replaced weasely and POV paraphrases of what the commision said with actual quotes.
 * Clarified the war-crimes lawsuit para to conform to facts.

HistoryBuffEr 02:48, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)


 * Nice try. Explain the specific changes you want to make, what you want to change to what, and provide evidence that they are valid. Jayjg 02:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I can't decide which aphorism is more apt here: "Pot, kettle, black" or "He who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". --Alberuni 04:31, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, are there any of HistoryBuffEr's edits that you consider acceptable? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:19, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there are, but I can't even tell what edits he's made. His brief summary above gives almost no indication of exactly what was changed, and it's hardly fair to other editors to force them to try to decipher exactly which edits his comments apply to.    As for the summaries, they're hardly acceptable or neutral; for example, what he refers to as "clarified" and "obvious" means "my own POV".  As well, the ICRC claim, which he heavily relies on, comes from a tertiary source; a review of a book which allegedly claims the ICRC reported this - HistoryBuffEr refuses to even allow note of this, and this is the "presumably neutral" estimate which should lead? Jayjg 16:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Jmabel, out of curiousity, which of HistoryBuffEr's mainspace article edits do you consider acceptable? --Viriditas 14:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I presume you mean on this page, rather than in general? To be honest, I'm still trying to work out exactly what he changed, I'm not willing to spend an hour doing so, and I find the above summary insufficient. When I make edits to controversial articles myself, I try to make them piecewise so that it's easy to reconstruct what I've changed. However, if in an article where I was editing, I were confronted with what HistoryBuffEr has done here, I would start from his version, let that be the baseline and make a series of edits each of which I was ready to defend. I did exactly that with MathKnight's edits at Left-wing politics; the result was eventually factored out into Post-September 11 anti-war movement, which admittedly is now NPOV disputed by someone who feels I didn't go far enough.


 * Again, I haven't looked through this all, but it seems to me that on a lot of points there isn't really much difference between the two versions, but both sides keep reverting wholesale instead of starting from the other's version and challenging specific points. On a lot of points, the two sides seem to be reverting back and forth on wordings that make no difference at all. Nothing about this will ultimately strengthen the article. I stand by my remark above about the Monty Python analogy. And the matter has been made difficult by a shortage of citation from both sides. Again, harking back to my difference with MathKnight on Left-wing politics: part of how we worked this out to our mutual satisfaction is that we both cited like mad (including him translating one cited article from Hebrew).


 * For some concrete examples where I think HistoryBuffEr has some valid points here (again, I'm hampered by his lack of citation, and I can't tell on either side what statements are being claimed to be actually false, vs. just saying "I can delete this because you haven't cited your source"):
 * "After the PLO forces left Beirut as agreed on September 1, Israel reoccupied Beirut, breaching firm guarantees given to the U.S., which had given written guarantees that it will protect civilians to the PLO." If true, this certainly belongs in the article. Without citation, I'm not sure what to say, but do you believe this to be false?
 * "Israeli army then confiscated the arms of all of the Muslim groups in West Beirut, but left the Christian Phalangist militias in East Beirut fully armed." Other than the grammar issue and the excess links, this seems important, if true.


 * Let me also remark that it seems seriously bizarre that HistoryBuffEr keeps removing, "At one point, a militiaman's radioed question to Elie Hobeika about what to do with the women and children in the refugee camp was intercepted by an Israeli liaison officer who replied "This is the last time you're going to ask me a question like that; you know exactly what to do" as Phalangist troops could be heard laughing in the background)," which I would expect would be entirely amenable to him.


 * Again, I haven't been much involved in this article except to talk about process. Again, my strong suggestion would be (1) Start from the other guy's version. (2) Strengthen it with citations and grammar improvements where you can: this is part of building a good encyclopedia. (3) Challenge him to produce specific citations on points you disbelieve (but recognize that plenty in Wikipedia is undercited, and don't remove material you believe to be probably true just because it is undercited and/or politically inconvenient to you). (4) Add your own material in numerous small doses rather than at a stroke, so that it is possible to understand the differences. (5) Cite, cite, cite on matters where someone disagrees with you: yes, I am saying to hold yourself to a higher standard than you demand from others.


 * I could probably add to that, but I imagine this is enough. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:02, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Your suggestions are reasonable, but I also don't have hours to try to figure out exactly what he's changed, especially when experience tells me it is pointless. For example, on Yasser Arafat, after he completely re-wrote the article, I went through section by section, NPOVing, restoring, challenging in Talk:, etc.  However, he ignored all of this and simply reverted to his version.  When Quadell came in as a neutral third party, and came up with a compromise version of Munich Massacre, which HistoryBuffEr agreed not to revert, HistoryBuffEr post facto decided that Quadell's changes were POV as well, and again reverted to his original version.  When someone acts like this, what possible solution is there?  Now Quadell is trying to achieve a compromise on this article, and I am perfectly happy to let him do all changes, and only propose or challenge in Talk:.  However, HistoryBuffEr will not agree to this.  Frankly, I'd make the same deal with you this article, but you'll not get agreement from HistoryBuffEr (and Alberuni) on that either. Jayjg 23:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, I did not remove the "radio" sentence, check your version (I have just reposted it to make sure.) As for claims in my version, of course I did not invent any of them, but no one ever asked anything, they just keep reverting. Obviously, it is not sources they are concerned about but the preservation of their propaganda version. HistoryBuffEr 02:53, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Jayjg uses Talk pages to obstruct NPOV edits in articles
Jayjg demands that all changes to "stable" articles (meaning articles with an established Zionist POV that suits him) be discussed in Talk. Then he engages in his usual tactic of tendentious sophistry and argumentative rhetoric to obstruct any changes that don't fit his extremist Zionist POV. He is incapable of engaging in honest dialogue, he refuses to accept facts that don't fit his POV, he complains when asked to cite references for his unsubstantiated POV pushing, and so he should be ignored and reverted. --Alberuni 17:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing. If you have any suggestions about the article content itself, they would be most welcome. Jayjg 18:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Compromise attempt
Greetings all. I'm an outsider to all this, but I know many of the conflicting editors here, at least by reputation, and I'm hoping I can help to reach a compromise. I'm right now reviewing the two potential drafts. They're quite different, but they both seem to have merit. I know you guys aren't going to like each other, and that's fine with me, but my hope is that we can get this article NPOV and stable. My suggestion will come when I'm done poring over them. – Quadell (talk) (help)  01:27, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * It can't come soon enough, as far as I'm concerned. Good luck!! Jayjg 14:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've read through both versions thoroughly. A few initial observations.
 * 1) According to our NPOV policy, this article must not say that Israel was responsible for the massacre, and it must not say that Israel was not responsible for the massacre. Sorry. Such judgements should be left to the reader. I think that's the gist of the debate. If everyone can agree on this, sincerely, then I think we can get this article stable. If not, then we can't.
 * 2) The article must say that many feel Israel is responsible, and that many feel Israel is not responsible. (It does now, in both versions, but this needs to be emphasized.)
 * 3) Everything stated as fact has to sound factual, and not accusational, to your opponents. For instance, take the sentence "This claim, which was disputed, was then used as a pretext for the subsequent massacre of civilians." The wording might seem to give the sentence a sense of moral outrage, and seems to place blame for the massacre on Israel, so it shouldn't be included as is. But the information in the sentence should be included in a non-accusational way.
 * 4) Much of the reverting seems to be personality-based, not content-based. What I mean is, many of you seem to reverting a change because of who authored it, more than because of the content of the change itself. Both sides appear guilty of this. I challenge all of you to look at each change, even if written by your enemy, as if your ally had written it. Things will go much smoother if you do.

Enough preliminaries. Let's get to the meat. I have placed a compromise version at Talk:Sabra and Shatila Massacre/AttemptedCompromise. It currently only includes the intro and Background section. (I thought I'd see if we could agree to this bit before I worked on other sections.)

I worked diligently and sincerely to come up with a compromise that used the best parts of each version, kept all relevant facts in, and removed the POV from both sides. Let me know what you think of it; I have no doubt it can be improved, and I welcome suggestions.

– Quadell (talk) (help)  16:23, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * I second this as a good start, although I'm not sure about the word "notorious", it's judgmental, maybe "well-known"? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:59, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point. I changed it.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   23:29, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Quadell: I don't think that'll work.
 * You are not an impartial editor. Case closed as far as I am concerned, but I'll add more for the benefit of others:
 * You do not seem to understand what "compromise" means. Your "compromise" on the Munich article was to take the previous highly POV and confused version and add a tidbit or two, leaving it in pretty much the same state.
 * You have again started from a heavily biased article in this case.
 * You misunderstand NPOV. It is not POV to state facts, regardless of where the blame falls.
 * One example: You supposedly don't want to blame anyone, but your draft says "Infighting and massacres between various groups claimed up to 100,000 victims". That's blaming Lebanese + Palestinian infighting for 100,000 dead, isn't it? The problem is that is contrary to facts. Israel's two invasions have caused tens of thousands of deaths (min. 18,000). It even says so in the article, but couched as Lebanese blaming Palestinians for deaths caused by [Israeli] invasions. Your version does not even mention that Israel caused any deaths, does it? So, you are misstating facts and also blaming the wrong party.
 * I could go on, but your "compromise" on this article looks anything but, just like your previous one. Not to mention that "NPOV is not negotiable".

HistoryBuffEr 04:57, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)


 * Okay, a few comments:
 * I'm sorry that you don't see my edits as impartial. I assure you that I am working sincerely for an impartial version, and I have no interest in seeing either POV come out ahead. Out of curiosity, who would you consider to be an impartial editor?
 * I have started with both versions of the S&S article, and attempted to merge them. I did not start with one version and try to add bits to it. Why do you think I did?
 * In the sentence "Infighting and massacres between various groups claimed up to 100,000 victims", I was including Israel as one of the "various groups". The sentence could certainly be reworded. What would you suggest?
 * Please remember that this is not about whether this person or that person is impartial or biased. This is about whether the text is POV or not. If you don't like me, okay, but that's irrelevant. If you think the compromise version could be improved, then let's discuss.
 * Thanks,   – Quadell (talk) (help)   14:03, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Nothing personal here, if you separate personality from work, which is what I criticized. The example above shows how your starting from a POV version and then overlooking major points (which Jmabel spotted and mentioned above) is unlikely to produce a better version, so you may want to reconsider your approach. HistoryBuffEr 02:44, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)


 * HistoryBuffEr, Do I understand this "starting from a POV version" to involve an implicit claim that your own version is simply neutral, rather than one of tow conflicting points of view? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:00, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Jmabel, if I didn't think that the old version was highly POV I would not waste my time on trying to fix it. I am not claiming that my version is perfect, but it is certainly more factual and clear. For the article to be NPOV it should include most important claims/diffs from my version. As the undisputed portions are same, it makes more sense to start with my version, but this is a free country so the choice is yours. HistoryBuffEr 07:20, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)


 * I didn't say "highly POV". I don't think either version is "highly POV". I don't even think they are all that far apart. I think it makes equal sense to start from either version, but whoever is trying to to the legwork should start from the version farther from their own view, and should have a justification for each edit. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:50, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Reading this (the compromise attempt, that is), two points come to mind (and a third - that there's a whole lot more in dispute here than the introduction):
 * "the alliance between Israel and Lebanese Christians" should read "and Maronite Christians". The Orthodox minority had rather different political alignments.
 * "Israel claims its experience working with the Phalangists before the massacres did not reveal a history of violence against civilians." - should be sourced (maybe it is somewhere on this page?); I am also extremely sceptical of the plausibility of this claim, but I'd need to check my books for the relevant background. - Mustafaa 23:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And HistoryBuffer has a point about "Infighting and massacres between various groups claimed up to 100,000 victims" - maybe "Conflict among local militias and between them and foreign forces, including massacres of civilians, claimed up to 100,000 victims." (Israel is the main "foreign force" in question, but the US and Syria also have a few deaths to account for.) - Mustafaa 23:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Poll on compromise version
I've put a lot of effort into the compromise attempt for the intro and first section. I would be very gratified if all the reverting parties could either agree that this version of this section is acceptable, or offer suggestions for improving it. Then we can move on. Please lend your voice to the poll below.

Yes

 * ''The compromise version of the Introduction and Background section is acceptable to me.


 * 1)    – Quadell (talk) (help)   14:42, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Viriditas 05:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Jayjg 06:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) - fine with me as well, and I'm sure you and Mustafaa can work out any remaining issues.

No

 * The compromise version is unacceptable to me. (Please list the specific changes which would make the version acceptable to you.)



Brief comments

 * Please do not use the voting section above to respond to each other's votes. Comments should go here instead.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   14:42, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * It seems fine in general, but a bit disjointed. For example, I'm not getting the connection between Gemayel, SLA and Haddad.  Also, why is Gemayel's ruthlessness relevant? Jayjg 22:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not familiar enough with the various groups to know what the connections are. My goal here isn't to make the article perfect; it's to make it reasonably NPOV enough that the editwars stop.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   00:53, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * After five days, it seems like it is unanimous. Everyone who had an opinion worth sharing has agreed not to revert the compromise version of the first two parts, and I'm going to make that change. This is not the be-all-end-all by any means -- I hope the article is worked on and improved. But I also hope it is not reverted. If, after a few days, it is clear that this section is not being reverted, I'll start working on the next section.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   19:50, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Use of "terrorist" and comparison with Munich Massacre
How about replacing Lebanese "militiaman" with Lebanese "terrorist" in the Sabra and Shatila massacre article. The Lebanese Christians were non-government militants carrying out politicial violence targeting civilians. They murdered hundreds of Palestinian civilians and are usually called "militiamen" or even "soldiers". In contrast the Munich Massacre hostage-takers kidnapped and murdered eleven civilians, much less (although still an indefensible war crime), and are usually called "terrorists". Would pro-Israeali Wikipedians revert that or not? Would they consider it POV?-Kingal86 20:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think paramilitary forces which stake out and control a certain territory would be considered a bit different from a group which exists purely to kill civilians in order to further political aims. Jayjg 22:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly a "pro-Israeali (sic) Wikipedian" (unless by pro-Israeli one means believing that Israel has a right to exist), but in general I would be very sparing the use of the words "terrorism" and "terrorist". It's one thing to say "A calls B a terrorist" -- that's OK -- but I can't think of a case where I would want to use it in the narrative voice of the article. In the case of the Munich Massacre, I wouldn't bother fighting to remove the word, nor (to cite an example where the perpetrators were Zionists) would I in the case of the Deir Yassin massacre. Given that we cite the UN calling the Sabra and Shatila Massacre genocidal -- a much stronger term than terrorist -- it's hard to imagine what would be gained by adding that word. After all, if we call the SS "paramilitary", it seems reasonable to use the same word for the Phalangists. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:33, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Using the term "terrorists" for one side in the conflict is definitely not the solution in an encyclopedia. The wording in the existing articles is quite balanced in this respect. In the Sabra and Shatila-article the Phalangists is referred to as "militia" or "militiamen". PLO is mostly referred to as "fighters" or "PLO-members". In the article on the Lebanese Civil War "militants" is used both regarding Phalangists and muslims. That goes for "forces" and "militias" too. In the Invasion of Lebanon-article "forces" and "militants" is used in connection with PLO, while "militia" is used when it comes to the Phalangists and the SLA. ~ John E 11.24 Nov 18. 2004

I was just attempting to point out what I consider hypocracy and bias. I don't advocate the use of the word "terrorist" generally.

Jayig, do you mean Black September existed purely to murder and attack civilians (which may be true), or that the PLO exists purely to murder civilians (which I don't agree with)? Kingal86 18:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Would you ever advocate the use of the word "terrorist"? I meant the former, that Black September existed purely to attack and murder civilians in order to further political aims. Jayjg 18:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Terrorist is a very strong word. I remember someone saying that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," Robert Taylor 20:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jayig, the way you are analyzing things really disturbed me. There is no group in history whose goal was killing civilians ( except for psycho serial killers), as for militias engaging in wars, yes they may participate in killing civilians as a means to acheive another goal, but not a goal or reason of existence for itself ( most explicit example is the massacres committed by the israelis in palestine before the founding of israel, whose aim of killing civilians was to intimidate palestinians & force them out thus preparing the land for new immigrants), this method during the lebanese civil war has been used by palestinian militias, phalangists, israeli army, syrian army, & all factions involved in the war, yet the word (terrorist) is only used with reference to Palestinian/ Muslim fighters. You should know better than to get sucked into a world war propaganda targeting the followers of a certain belief. Its fair either to label the phalangists as terrorists or to remove that word from all wikipedia pages including..Hamas, Jihad, Hezbolla...& yes..Al Qaeda, why where they labeled as terrorists when they caused the death of american civilians while when phalangists kill & rape palestinian civilians they are described as SOLDIERS!!!, i hope its got nothing to do with the nationality of the victims else wiki would be in serious trouble. 195.229.41.163 12:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)The man who sold the world

HistoryBuffEr
You've been asked to stop replacing this article and you have been repeatedly invited to work on a consensus version with Quadell, Jayjg, myself, and others. --Viriditas 03:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A More Historical Version
I've decided to help fix this article with factual and neutral info. So far I have just tweaked obviously unclear or POV claims. But the subject deserves better: more facts to paint a clear background and the sequence of events.

I've posted pass 1. I'd be more than happy if someone informed and neutral jumped in to finish it. Feel free to ask questions, post objections, add useful info, or tweak fuzzy parts, if there are any. HistoryBuffEr


 * Please see comment above. Please bring your POV edits here first for review by other editors. Jayjg 19:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

At first sight, I have to say HistoryBuffer's version looks better-researched (and notably longer!) on the one hand, and more POV on the other hand. How about actually discussing the problems with each version here? - Mustafaa 22:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As, I should point out, Quadell seems to have suggested all along. - Mustafaa 23:10, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1st paragraph
Let's see... First paragraph:
 * The Sabra and Shatila massacre (or Sabra and Chatila massacre) was carried out in September 1982 by the Lebanese Christian militias with assistance of Israel in the then Israeli-occupied Beirut, Lebanon.

vs.
 * The Sabra and Shatila massacre (or Sabra and Chatila massacre) was carried out in September 1982 by the Lebanese Christian militias in Beirut and Lebanon. Israel's culpability in the incident is a matter of hot dispute.

The first is correct, strictly speaking - the Israeli blockade of the camp did indeed have the effect of assisting in the massacre - but leaves a misleading impression that Israelis were doing the killing themselves. The second is true, but misleading insofar as it suggests that there is some possibility that Israel had nothing at all to do with the whole thing. How about:
 * The Sabra and Shatila massacre (or Sabra and Chatila massacre) was carried out in September 1982 by Lebanese Christian militias in the then Israeli-occupied Beirut, Lebanon. The camps were externally surrounded by Israeli soldiers at the time, and the militias had been sent in by Israel; Israel's culpability in the incident is a matter of hot dispute.

Or does someone dispute those two points? - Mustafaa 23:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks good to me. – Quadell (talk) (help)  00:02, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

2nd section
HistoryBuffer: "Infighting and massacres between these groups claimed several thousands of victims. The two major invasions of Lebanon by Israel (in 1978 and 1982), claimed upwards of 20,000 lives, mostly Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. The total death toll in Lebanon for the period was up to 100,000 victims."

Me: "Conflict among local militias and between them and the foreign forces, including massacres of civilians, claimed up to 100,000 victims."

I think HistoryBuffer's version is better - if it's accurate. Can you provide some preemptive sources? - Mustafaa 23:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A notable gap in the "consensus version" of this section is HistoryBuffer's:


 * The Israeli Premier Menachem Begin summoned Gemayel and demanded from him to sign a peace treaty with Israel establishing Israeli military presence in southern Lebanon under control of Major Haddad (a supporter of Israel), and to move into the Sabra and Shatila camps.


 * However, the Phalangists, who were previously united as reliable Israeli allies were now split because of developing alliances with Syria, which opposed Israel. Gemayel now had to balance interests of many competing factions within Lebanon. He refused Israel's demands to sign the treaty or to authorize operations in the refugee camps.

Clearly the facts in question need to be included here. However, I suspect the phrasing may be considered POV. - Mustafaa 23:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A second gap is HistoryBuffer's:


 * The next day, on September 15, the Israeli army reoccupied West Beirut, killing 88 people and wounding 254. This Israeli action breached firm guarantees given to the U.S., which had given written guarantees to the PLO that the U.S. would ensure protection of Palestinian civilians. Israel's occupation also violated its peace agreements with Muslim forces in Beirut and with Syria.


 * Menachem Begin justified the occupation as "necessary to prevent acts of revenge by the Christians against the Palestinians” and to "maintain order and stability after Gemayel’s assassination". However, several days later, Ariel Sharon told the Israel’s parliament: “Our entry into West Beirut was in order to make war against the infrastructure left by the terrorists”.

This is manifestly relevant, except possibly for the casualty figures. Does anyone dispute this paragraph? - Mustafaa 23:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My take on this
So far, looking through the edits here, I have to say I think HistoryBuffer's been a lot more constructive than he's being given credit for. A substantial expansion of this article, adding some genuinely important facts, seems to be being held back largely by POV objections; honestly, wouldn't it be more fruitful (or at least easier in practice) to fix the POV issues from his version than from the considerably shorter and less detailed version to which the other editors here are reverting? - Mustafaa 23:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As, I note, Jmabel seems to have said above. - Mustafaa 23:41, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I trust your take on this. I think a lot of people object to HB's edits because of his attitude. Similar edits from someone else might not raise the same objections. It's just human nature.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   00:13, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait till Sunday, and if no one has objected I'll revert to HistoryBuffer's version and start trying to NPOV it. - Mustafaa 01:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Best of luck. I hope we can get something like consensus out of this. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:42, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Mustafaa, most info in my version is (or should) be widely known (for some reason, the article on the 1982 invasion here lists no casualties from invasion.) Feel free to rephrase statements to make them more neutral, just keep in mind that using euphemisms for plain facts is usually POV.


 * The intro should fairly summarize what's in the article. Both versions contain these same undisputed facts:
 * Israel, both the army and the govt, knew what was going on,
 * Israeli soldiers blocked exits and turned back refugees fleeing the massacre,
 * Israel armed, fed and supplied the killers throughout the slaughter.
 * Obviously, these acts constitute at least assistance, otherwise the word "assistance" has no meaning. Labeling this "assistance" could be POV only if Israel had no idea what was going on, but that's not the case here.
 * Israel has admitted "indirect responsibility", the only dispute is whether Israel's role was premeditated (as facts suggest) and whether those responsible should be punished as war-criminals.
 * Here is my suggestion for a summary accurately reflecting the the article:
 * "The Sabra and Shatila massacre of Palestinian refugees was carried out in September 1982 by Lebanese Christian militias with assistance of Israel in the then Israeli-occupied Beirut, Lebanon. The militias had been armed and sent in by Israel and the camps were surrounded by Israeli soldiers; however, while acknowledging being aware of the massacres at the time, Israel has denied direct responsibility."
 * HistoryBuffEr 19:32, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)


 * Israel didn't assist in the massacre, the Phalange wasn't "sent in" by Israel to massacre the Palestinians, and the whole paragraph is obviously intended to promote the POV that Israel planned the massacre and is responsible for it. The Phalange and the South Lebanese army were different, where is the evidence that Israel armed the Phalange? Jayjg 01:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the Phalange was sent in by Israel, according to the Kahane Commission:


 * On 16.9.82 a document was issued by the Defense Minister's office, signed by the personal aide to the Defense Minister, Mr. Avi Dudai, which contained "The Defense Minister's Summary of 15 September 1982." This document is (exhibit 34) a summary of the things which Mr. Dudai had recorded during his visit with the Defense Minister in Beirut on 15.9.82, as detailed above. In various paragraphs of the document there is mention of the Defense Minister's instructions regarding the entry into West Beirut. The instruction in paragraph F. is important to the matter at had; it is stated there:


 * "F. Only one element, and that is the I.D.F., shall command the forces in the area. For the operation in the camps the Phalangists should be sent in."

And surrounding the camps and turning back those who fled them - the latter was filmed by an American cameraman for Visnews who, not being an Arabic-speaker, didn't even realize what he was watching - clearly counts as "assisting" by any reasonable standard. However, I note that the word "assisting" is not used in HistoryBuffer's revised version. - Mustafaa 17:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I should also add that, according to the refugees' testimony and by Haddad's own admission, elements of the South Lebanese Army were involved as well. - Mustafaa 17:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I find this wholesale replacement of the article with HistoryBuffEr's version extremely disturbing. What is the "agreement in Talk:" you refer to?  Did Quadell or I or Viriditas or anyone besides HB "agree" to this? Jayjg 20:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I said that the Phalange wasn't sent in to massacre the Palestinians. Jayjg 20:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The article itself should attempt to describe the events, not editorialize about them. For example, the article now says "For the next 36 to 48 hours, the Phalangists massacred the inhabitants of the refugee camps, while the Israeli military guarded the exits and provided logistical support." before actually describing the events in question. This is an editorial comment open to multiple interpretations which is not required by the text; rather, the text should simply list the events as they happened, and let the reader draw whatever conclusions are reasonable. Jayjg 20:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The article is now full of dubious conflations and confusions. For example, it continues to confuse the SLA with the Phalange; Israel's relationship with each was quite different, and inserting unrelated sentences like "Israel had been training, arming, supplying and even uniforming the Christian South Lebanon Army since 1978" into a sentence about Gemayel and the Phalange is only intended to misdirect the typical reader, who will not realize the distinction. Jayjg 20:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The text now contains all sorts of unsubstantiated claims; for example, how did the Israeli re-occupation of Beirut breach guarantees given to the Americans? And the count of the dead total is a complete crock "The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reportedly counted 2,750 victims. Palestinian estimates of the death toll range between 3,000 and 3,500. The parties responsible, however, cited much lower numbers. The Lebanese police reports and the Kahan Commission investigating the Israeli army's role in the events put the minimum death toll at 460. Israel claimed that its intelligence estimates were 700 to 800, and this estimate was reported in most Western media."  Where is the ICRC report of 2,750 victims?  Currently the claim is only supported by a web review of a non-existent article making the caim.  And how are the Lebanese police one of the "parties responsible"?  In fact, why is this editorial comment again necessary? Where did the information from the actual Red Cross observer go, which actually listed even lower numbers?  Compare with the original, accurate, and non-editorial version: "The number of victims of the massacre is disputed. A letter from the head of the Red Cross delegation to the Lebanese Minister of Defense stated that Red Cross representatives had counted 328 bodies, though Ahmad Al-Tal asserts that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) counted 2,750 victims: 1,500 at the time and a further 1,250 by September 23 as more bodies were uncovered . Israeli figures, based on IDF intelligence, cite a figure of 700-800. The Kahan Commission put the minimum death toll at 460, a total of the dead counted by the Lebanese Red Cross, the International Red Cross, the Lebanese Civil Defense, the medical corps of the Lebanese army, and by relatives of the victims; this agrees with the estimate of the Lebanese police. Palestinians claim between 3,000 and 3,500." Jayjg 20:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In answer to your first question: yes, both Quadell and Jmabel agreed to it above. Since you had posted in this section, I assumed you had read the discussion in it. As for the rest, let's start NPOVing... - Mustafaa 00:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"how did the Israeli re-occupation of Beirut breach guarantees given to the Americans?" I've seen the exact quote from the American representative concerned, but I don't have the book on me. I'll try and get this tomorrow. - Mustafaa 01:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Number of victims: Neither version looks very NPOV to me - see my next edit for what I hope is better claim attribution... - Mustafaa 01:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * O.K., no I didn't see the discussion above. Regarding the list of victims, your version is a good start, but do you really consider that Al Jazeera article good attribution of the 2,750 claim? Shouldn't we be able to find something from the ICRC that actually says that?  Where is this elusive ICRC report?  Did it even have a name?  And what about the editorial comments (logistical support etc.)? Jayjg 03:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Further issues:
 * Who are the anonymous "critics" who called the Kahan commission a "whitewash"? And who is the subsequent quote actually quoting? Jayjg 03:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Did the Kahan commission really find that Ariel Sharon was "personally responsible", or were its conclusions somewhat more nuanced than that, involving indirect responsibility? Jayjg 03:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Did Belgium really revise its law based solely on U.S. pressure? Did allies pressure Belgium solely because the U.S. made them?  Or was the pressure from other countries in their own interest, and necessary to bring Belgian law into line with that of other Western European countries? In fact, wasn't Belgium itself relieved to change the law, as its courts were being flooded by cases against just about every world leader, including Tony Blair, Fidel Castro, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and even Yasser Arafat?   Jayjg 03:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What does this sentence mean: "The next day, on September 15, the Israeli army reoccupied West Beirut, killing 88 people and wounding 254. This Israeli action breached firm guarantees given to the United States, which had given written guarantees to the PLO that the U.S. would ensure protection of Palestinian civilians. Israel's occupation also violated its peace agreements with Muslim forces in Beirut and with Syria.", and where is there evidence for any of it? Jayjg 03:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, I'd quite like to find the ICRC report and check; but it's not online, so I may have to check an actual library first. That said, Al-Jazeera is a reputable news organization; it has been criticised for supposed bias, but not, to my knowledge, for inaccurate reporting. I'm working on getting rid of some editorial comments, but that Israel provided "logistical support" is a simple fact, not an editorial point. I think you have a point as regards Belgium, and most certainly the quote needs sourcing. I'm not precisely sure what your objection to the sentence whose meaning you enquire about is, but it could use more precise attribution (don't suppose anyone's Wikisourced the relevant agreements?) - Mustafaa 03:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I concur with Al-Jazeera being a reputable news organization; while of course it would be an improvement to cite the primary source, we routinely cite reputable news organizations. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:34, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Here's the problem; the Al Jazeera citation is just one claim by one article author, and we have no idea where he got his information. As a counter-example, here's a link that was provided in the Yasser Arafat article to prove that Arafat pulled out a pistol in the U.N.: .  While the source (the BBC) would seem reliable, in fact this appears to be a false claim, as Arafat wore a gun holster, but did not pull out a pistol.  Similarly, here we have a completely un-referenced claim made by one Al Jazeera article author. Jayjg 16:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, the claim (made by many sites, not just Al-Jazeera, as a Google search for sabra 2,750 shows) should continue to be mentioned unless proven wrong. Reputable media may indeed get their facts wrong, but the normal assumption has to be that they're quotable. In the meantime, one of us should try to find the ICRC report of September 22, 1982, which these sites reference as listing 2,400 of the deaths. - Mustafaa 19:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've seen those sites, and quite frankly, the caliber of the vast majority of them make that fleeting Al Jazeera reference look rock solid by comparison. There's lots of false stuff that floats around the web, and gets copied from one propaganda site to another.  As a simple example, did Ariel Sharon say "Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us etc.?"  A simple google search gets 350 different websites carrying this quote, many more than the actual references you'll find to the 2,750 figure from the ICRC.  It has been very impressively referenced as coming from an interview done by Amos Oz with Sharon, published in Davar on Dec. 17, 1982, and it was apparently quoted in the Guardian in 2002.  Even now someone has put it on the Ariel Sharon Talk: page to be inserted into the article.  And yet, it is a hoax; Sharon never said this at all, but rather it is something the fictional character "Z" said in a novel by Oz, and now being falsely attributed to Sharon.  If we blind ourselves to the propaganda war going on on the internet, and the falsehoods people are willing to put up on their websites, or even publish in major news sources, we will be doing Wikipedia a disservice. Jayjg 20:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That's an argument for finding and checking the report in question ourselves, not for deleting the reference in the meantime; it's clearly sourced, so let the reader decide based on their own opinion of the sources' reliability. - Mustafaa 12:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If it's supposed to trace back to Amos Oz, it should be easy enough to track down the original publication and determine whether Oz says Sharon said this or Oz put this in the mouth of a fictional character. The article should certainly make it clear which, and if the quotation turns out to be apocryphal, but circulates that widely, we probably ought still to mention it is in "many sources attribute to Sharon ... ... but in fact this statement originated in a work of fiction by Amos Oz ." -- Jmabel | Talk 22:06, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Logistical support" is vague and ambiguous; the article should simply list the support provided in the appropriate narrative. The Belgium material is indeed problematic.  As for the last part, how exactly did the Israeli actions breach firm guarantees to the U.S., what were the nature of those guarantees, and why were the U.S.'s written guarantees to the PLO regarding civilians relevant to this?  Is the implication here that all 88 people killed and 254 wounded were civilians? Jayjg 04:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, I quote the very useful Kahan Commission, though more information would be useful: - Mustafaa 16:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "It should be added here that during the negotiations for evacuation, a guarantee for the safety of the Muslims in West Beirut was given by the representative of the United States who conducted the negotiations, following assurances received from the government of Israel and from Lebanon."


 * Right, but the article here implies that the deaths breached the guarantees, and that they were all of civilians. And apparently the guarantee was made regarding Muslims in West Beirut, not Palestinians. Jayjg 16:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * As I read it, it only implies that some of the dead were civilians (that's all it would take for the guarantee to be breached). But the Muslims point is worth editing (though, of course, such a guarantee would include Palestinians.) - Mustafaa 17:25, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * In Pity the Nation, Robert Fisk quotes Philip Habib (the American official concerned) as saying "I signed a piece of paper which guaranteed that these people [the Palestinians] would not be harmed. I got specific guarantees on this from Bashir and from the Israelis - from Sharon." - Mustafaa 17:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Did the Kahan commission really find that Ariel Sharon was "personally responsible"" - Yes. The exact quote- Mustafaa 03:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * We have found, as has been detailed in this report, that the Minister of Defense 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 under Section 21-A(a) of the Basic Law: the Government, according to which "the Prime Minister may, after informing the Cabinet of his intention to do so, remove a minister from office."


 * Also from the report: "To sum up this chapter, we assert that the atrocities in the refugee camps were perpetrated by members of the Phalangists, and that absolutely no direct responsibility devolves upon Israel or upon those who acted in its behalf. At the same time, it is clear from what we have said above that the decision on the entry of the Phalangists into the refugee camps was taken without consideration of the danger - which the makers and executors of the decision were obligated to foresee as probable - that the Phalangists would commit massacres and pogroms against the inhabitants of the camps, and without an examination of the means for preventing this danger. Similarly, it is clear from the course of events that when the reports began to arrive about the actions of the Phalangists in the camps, no proper heed was taken of these reports, the correct conclusions were not drawn from them, and no energetic and immediate actions were taken to restrain the Phalangists and put a stop to their actions. This both reflects and exhausts Israel's indirect responsibility for what occurred in the refugee camps." The Kahan Commission is clear that it believed that the "personal responsibility" that Sharon bore was of an "indirect" nature. Jayjg 04:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * In case you were interested, here's the way I worded it a month ago in the Ariel Sharon article: The Kahan Commission investigating these massacres recommended in early 1983 the removal of Sharon from his post as Defense Minister for "indirect responsibility" in the massacre, stating that the "Minister of Defense [Sharon] bears personal responsibility". Jayjg 20:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You know, Jayjg, at least two of the issues you've raised were already in the version you were reverting to... - Mustafaa 03:56, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * And so we shouldn't NPOV them now? Jayjg 04:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, eventually perhaps we should, but it is not reasonable to ask Mustafaa, who is clearly making a valiant effort to reconcile to conflicting versions of this article, over which there has been one of the longest-running and least productive edit wars I have ever seen, to be "more Catholic than the Pope". It should be his goal, right now, to take the strongest material from the two conflicting versions, further strengthen it where he can, and try to get this into territory where it can be worked on as a normal article. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * First of all, I would also like to gratefully acknowledge Mustafaa's excellent work so far in attempting to get this article into shape; much of the most egregiously POV and inaccurate material has already been removed, and some of the rest appears to be on the chopping block. And I get your "first things first" point as well, but right now (while the edit wars have subsided) we actually have a golden opportunity to make the article relatively POV-proof by carefully citing the various claims in it.  My concern is that if this is not done, it will be difficult to ever work on it as a "normal article".  As for long-running and unproductive edit wars, you should mosey on over to the Circumcision related articles some time, or the more recent assaults on any articles relating to the Historicity of Jesus; I think the latter in particular definitely exceeds this war for un-productiveness. :-) Jayjg 16:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think I'll pass on that. Both of those sound like areas which would be tempting mainly to POV warriors on either side, not really what I like to spend my time on. This one, I can imagine that two decades after the fact the dust may have settled enough to write an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:47, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * "The better part of valor is discretion" - William Shakespeare. Jayjg 20:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV away; I raise the point as a reminder that, whatever his history with you elsewhere may be (I don't know), on this article HistoryBuffer is by no means the source of all problems. In fact, the one sentence I've spotted so far that constituted misleading incitement against Israel was left over from the previous version, and several of the questions I've raised have also turned out to be holdouts from the previous. - Mustafaa 16:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, one of the very few things I personally added to the article was the reference to Ahmad Al-Tal, which HistoryBuffEr insisted on deliberately deleting, yet note (and approve of the fact that) you added it back (you refer to him as Ahmad Tall). Jayjg 20:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The original reference, though, was a broken link; I imagine that was HB's objection. - Mustafaa 11:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I imagine not, since HistoryBuffEr provided the original reference himself. Jayjg

Jayjg: I think the article now addresses every point you've raised here. Do you agree, and do you or anyone else see any other problems? (I'm sure somebody's answer will be yes - possibly even mine - but one can hope...) - Mustafaa 15:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll look it over again, and post any continuing or new concerns in a new section below; this section is too long and confusing. Jayjg 16:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Questions for HistoryBuffer
A general point: I make a habit of, when editing controversial articles, adding little links in places where a disputed point is likely to arise. It would be very nice if everyone did something similar, especially for edit war articles like this. - Mustafaa 01:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)



Just during the civil war et al, or did they date back to 1948? - Mustafaa 01:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They did date back to 1948;. - Mustafaa 01:56, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * a peace treaty with Israel establishing Israeli military presence in southern Lebanon under control of Major Saad Haddad (a supporter of Israel), and to move into the Sabra and Shatila camps.

Can you cite a source on the contents of this unsigned treaty? - Mustafaa 01:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Israeli army then confiscated the arms of all of the Muslim groups in West Beirut, leaving the Christian Phalangist militias in East Beirut fully armed.

All of them? How is that even possible? Offhand, that sounds like it contradicts Robert Fisk's account. - Mustafaa 01:56, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * In another report, an Israeli tank crew saw several men, women and children being led to a stadium where they were to be interrogated or executed.

Which report? Who by? - Mustafaa 02:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Israel later claimed that their General Yaron had ordered the Phalangists next day at 11:30 am to "stop advancing", but that order had no effect.

This seems to flatly disagree with the Kahan Commission report, which says:


 * Already shortly after the Phalangists' entrance into the camps, he started receiving reports which should have clarified to him the gravity of the danger of a massacre being perpetrated in the camps and which should have spurred him to take immediate steps, whether on his own cognizance or by authorization from the G.O.C. or the Chief of Staff, to prevent the continuation of operations of these kinds. No action was taken by Brigadier General Yaron, and neither did he see to conveying the information in his possession to his superiors.

- Mustafaa 02:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)



Who is this quote supposed to be from? - Mustafaa 03:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh. I just realized this wasn't added by HB. - Mustafaa 03:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This quote was part of the original article, and comes from the now-offline http://www.jerusalemites.org/sabra.html. It might be worth finding a better quote. - Mustafaa 03:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Answers by HistoryBuffer
Note that I was only halfway done, many claims were left over from the previous version until further research. Here are some online links, I'll post more (or retrieve books and quote from them).


 * "A peace treaty with Israel establishing Israeli military presence in southern Lebanon under control of Major Saad Haddad (a supporter of Israel), and to move into the Sabra and Shatila camps."
 * Can you cite a source on the contents of this unsigned treaty? - Mustafaa 01:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "Benny Morris wrote in Righteous Victims (John Murray, 1999), "Israel had forcefully lobbied for Gemayel’s election and, indeed, its troops escorted a number of deputies to the session." The Israeli army flew President-elect Gemayel to northern Israel for a secret meeting with Prime Minister Menachem Begin at which Begin demanded that Gemayel publicly visit Tel Aviv or Jerusalem and sign a treaty of peace with Israel. Gemayel resisted, saying that a treaty and visit would further weaken his credibility with the Muslim half of his population."
 * "The last trip Bashir made to discuss the treaty, Bashir got into a verbal conflict with Prime Minister Begin." (Note that this is a strongly pro-Israel source).
 * These show Gemayel's refusal. The treaty signed in 1983 was essentially the same (it included the "security zone" in southern Lebanon, which Bashir had rejected.) I'll post more when I get a chance. HistoryBuffEr 08:09, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't dispute the fact of his refusal; but none of the sources I've found go into any detail on the contents of the treaty he was offered, emphasizing instead that he personally took offense at Begin's condescension. How do we know this was the same offer as in 1983? - Mustafaa 17:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've seen the terms of the 1983 treaty described as better than Begin's "offer" to Gemayel (because the US had intervened), but even the 1983 treaty was renounced later. I don't have the details handy, but here is one source supporting this para: . HistoryBuffEr 18:21, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
 * I may be missing something, but I don't see anything about the treaty in this link; in fact, it seems to stop just before the 1982 invasion. - Mustafaa 19:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, here are all three parts: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3. HistoryBuffEr 20:03, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This explains one thing: it lists the treaty and the security zone and camp demands as three separate Israeli demands, rather than including the latter two as part of the treaty, which would seem a bit extreme.  Nonetheless, it would be nice to have some documentation of these demands from a more neutral (or original) source. - Mustafaa 12:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree, I'll try to find more. This article has some words from Gemayel about the treaty. HistoryBuffEr 22:17, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)


 * "Israeli army then confiscated the arms of all of the Muslim groups in West Beirut, leaving the Christian Phalangist militias in East Beirut fully armed."
 * All of them? How is that even possible? Offhand, that sounds like it contradicts Robert Fisk's account. - Mustafaa 01:56, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "05:00am - The Israelis occupy West Beirut, meeting little resistance, but causing great devastation. IDF troops have orders to disarm, in their advance, all Muslim and leftist militias. Colonel Zvi Elpeleg, former Israeli governor of Nabatiyyeh, comments: In Lebanese society, paradoxically, the continuous presence of armed civilians has been an element of equilibrium and mutual deterrence. The entry of Israeli troops into West Beirut has subverted the existing facts. The Israelis have disarmed thousands of citizens, including members of the Shiite movement, Amal. Most of these were simple workers or peasants who bought these weapons with their meager savings for personal defense. These people, therefore, found themselves exposed, at the mercy of the Phalangists. (Ma'ariv, September 26, 1982)." HistoryBuffEr 08:09, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
 * "IDF troops have orders to disarm, in their advance, all Muslim and leftist militias." and "The Israelis have disarmed thousands of citizens, including members of the Shiite movement, Amal", not "Israeli army then confiscated the arms of all of the Muslim groups in West Beirut". The article should quote the facts, not editorialize; Israel targetted more than just Muslims, and the notion that Israel managed to confiscate all arms is frankly, not credible. Jayjg 16:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "All militias" does not mean "all arms". Stating just: "Disarmed Muslim militias and civilians" would be probably more accurate and clear. HistoryBuffEr 18:21, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)


 * "In another report, an Israeli tank crew saw several men, women and children being led to a stadium where they were to be interrogated or executed.
 * Which report? Who by? - Mustafaa 02:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This was left over from the previous version. HistoryBuffEr 08:09, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)


 * "Israel later claimed that their General Yaron had ordered the Phalangists next day at 11:30 am to "stop advancing", but that order had no effect."
 * This seems to flatly disagree with the Kahan Commission report, which says:
 * This was also left over from the previous version. HistoryBuffEr 08:09, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

P.S: I have additional info for part 1, I'll post them next time. HistoryBuffEr 08:09, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)