Israel's Murderous PM

Hairy Homer

Somebody ( I think it was Smedley) asked in a previous post to give evidence that would justify calling Ariel Sharon a butcher.

In the 1950s he was the field commander of a unit that was sent into Jordan to carry out a reprisal for a Palestinian raid on Israel. His unit occupied the village of Kibya and dynamited several houses with the inhabitants still inside. About 50 were killed. He claimed that he didn't know that they were in the houses at the time. They must all have been hiding under the beds, or in the wardrobes or something. Credible huh?

As a democratic society subject to the rule of law, Israel conducted an enquiry into the incident. His explanation was accepted.

Gosh darn those good ol' boys sure know how to look after their own. If a German soldier had done something like that in WWII, they'd still be looking for him.

And of course there was the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which culminated in Israel's proxies in the Maronite militias massacring hundreds of Palestinian civilians in Sabra and Chatila while the Israeli Army sealed off the area and looked on, some days AFTER the PLO fighters had been escorted off the premises and out of the country.

Sharon, Israel's defence minister at the time, is not a particularly well liked individual among his own countrymen. I once spent some time in Israel, on a kibbutz run by a left wing Israeli party which held some views, outlandish at the time, such as that negotiation with the PLO was an essential prerequisite to a peace process.

In those days, talking to the PLO was a criminal offence for Israeli citizens. Some years later, you'd get a Nobel Peace Prize for it.

I can remember a conversation with one of the kibbutz members in which the name of Ariel Sharon was being vilified.

'Who's Ariel Sharon?' I asked, innocently.
'A nasty little man who has got a lot of people, both Israeli and Arab, killed because he believes in only one thing and that's Ariel Sharon.' my friend replied.

And that was in 1985.

Got anything to add to that Smedley? Apart from Blah f*&$ing Blah?

Fidelis

Anyone remember them ? The Israeli funded militia in Lebanon whose mission it was to destroy the South, and some Hizbollah if the chance arose

Another notch on the savage-o-meter for Israel

Democracy ? Ha, don't make me laugh... to late.

bonkey

Originally posted by Smedley
I personally don't care for all of Sharon's policies, but Sharon, whether you like him or not, is a true believer in Israel.

And this is the crux of hte matter.

You, too, come across as a "true believer" in Israel. Which is where the problems are. Simply "truly believing" in a nation does not give it the right to do as it will.

To be honest, I partially agree with you - I think Israel has gotten some undeserved poor press. However, I also think Israel deserves criticism for many of its actions, particularly in the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians.

Someone (was it you, Smedley, or someone else?) launched a tirade against someone for criticising Israel. This criticism brought cries of anti-semitism, anti-Jew, and so on. This is absolute pants, but its where this whole thing came from.

You cannot defend every single action taken by the Israeli's against the Palestinians in the current conflict as being perfectly valid. Similarly, you cannot just come out with sweeping statements like "Sharon is a butcher", nor claim that every military action which the Israeli's have undertaken was justified.

The fact remains that Israel *did* step up activity immediately after the WTC bombings. No-one (except the Israeli "high command") really knows whether this was coincidental (pre-planned) or deliberate exploitation of the event.

The fact that both sides sat down at a table shortly afterwards to broker a peace deal makes me believe that it is immaterial. what is important is that the hostilities cease on both sides, and an agreement be worked out between rational human beings. Of course, I'd say that about NI as well.....it takes time, there will be incidents...and there's still a lot of complete cretins in politics who's egos and flag-waving get in the way of peace.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Smedley
Well, the obvious rationale is self-defense. I dont think it was coincidental. I think it was in contemplation of possible Palestinian actions in the aftermath of the WTC in a town known for terrorist activities.

Regardless, self-defense is a legit motive. The original anti-Israel poster inferred nefarious reasons -- no real rationale and totally unsupported -- and I beleive I called him "anti-Israeli" for it.

Actually, I dont think self-defense is a legit argument. The "tit-for-tat" fighting going on between Israel and Palestine is neither a serious attempt on one side to drive the invaders out (as the P's see the I's), nor a serious attempt on the Israeli side to quell the violence.

Both sides are trying to bully the other side in to giving up. It is the same type of tactics (albeit on a larger scale) as has been seen in Northern Ireland between the loyalist and republicna paramilitaries for decades.

I would posit that aggravating a foe who you believe may attack is not a very smart move in self-defense.

A major offensive may have been credible as self-defense, as would an increased, but pacifistic military presence coupled with a warning of what would happen if the P's did try exploit the aftermath.

This does not imply there was anything sinister, as originally implied, but I also dont think there was anything truly defensible about it

Yep! Unfortunately hostilities must stop on both sides. I would respectfully assert that it was the PA, not Israel, who didn't abide by this tenet just as the new peace agreement was finalized

I would tend to agree. However, as with any peace accord in troubled times, both sides must give things time to settle down somewhat and see whether or not both sides are genuine.

Again, I know its a different kettle of fish, but look at the situation in NI. How many years since the original cease-fire? We still have violence, we still have killings. What we also have is a majority of people actively persuing peace, or pretending to at any rate. Its still better then the gunfire.

jc

Victor

First off Smedley, thanks for the tamer posts. It makes them more readable and believable.

---

Originally posted by Hairy Homer
And of course there was the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which culminated in Israel's proxies in the Maronite militias massacring hundreds of Palestinian civilians in Sabra and Chatila while the Israeli Army sealed off the area and looked on, some days AFTER the PLO fighters had been escorted off the premises and out of the country.

Originally posted by Smedley
I am first to admit that Sharon shared responsibility for that. However, I've never seen any evidence that Sharon planned of knew about the attacks at issue prior to their occurence. Merely having allies that do evil does not make Sharon a butcher.[/B]

I think 'allies' may be inappropriate in reference to the militias involved in the massacres. While they did have there own middle-level leadership, they were uniformed, financed, trained, equipped and supported by Israel.

These militias had fought side by side with the Israeli Army, as a proxy, an extension of it's own chain of command. This chain of command existed, right up to Sharon at the top as Defence Minister. Under any chain of command, the commander must take responsibility for his subordinates.

The Israeli Army, indeed and occupying army, owes a duty of care towards civilians under International Law. That duty of care was not exercised. Retribution can always be expected after an invasion, the regulars in the Israeli Army specifically avoided the refugee camps, so as to allow the militias to carry out the massacres, without hindrance.

Sharon has been indicted in Belgium as the Commander of the Israeli army when the massacres took place.

Victor

Originally posted by Smedley
I guess I don't need to question the veracity of your post, merely the facts that: (1) The issue is not in Belguim's jurisdiction. (2) indictments are easier to get than a taxi.

I would be profoundly interested in seeing details of this. Any sites?

Not that I know of off hand. For some newspaper reporting try

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2001/0702/wor15.htm
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2001/0703/wor7.htm
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2001/0717/wor16.htm
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2001/0728/wor6.htm
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2001/0922/index.htm

Belgium has an extra-territorial law dealing with serious crimes.

"The cases have been brought under a Belgian law which allows for charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide to be heard in the Belgian courts, regardless of where the alleged crimes took place, the nationality or residency of either the victims or the accused. The cases are not related to UN Court's remit."

"Mr Sharon was Israel's defence minister at the time and an Israeli investigation the following year concluded that, although he was not directly responsible for the massacre, he bore "political" responsibility."

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
"Mr Sharon was Israel's defence minister at the time and an Israeli investigation the following year concluded that, although he was not directly responsible for the massacre, he bore "political" responsibility."

Isnt this a nice way of saying "Sharon had nothing to do with it, but we have to ultimately assign blame to someone high up in the chain of command" ???

All too often, politicians are held accountable for actions which realistically they had no influence on, where it would be unrealistic to expect them to be informed of such things.

If Sharon is guilty of setting policy, then he is to blame. Simply being in charge when the massacres took place and being held "politically responsible" is a politicians way of saying "blaming the commander who gave the order isnt enough".

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Smedley

I believe Sharon WAS dismissed from his position for this.

Yup...I think so. Again, however, this strikes me more a case of "someone must be seen to be accountable" than a case of "he is responsible".

But I honestly dont know.

jc

Magwitch

Though the massacres in question were in fact carried out by the SLA the Isreali army was there and did organise it. Given the close links between any Isreali cabinet and Military operations Sharon could not have been innocent or not have had prior warning and knowledge of what was a planned operation.

I think the fact he is in power and has enjoyed a long and almost uninterupted political career does point to a certain mind set in Isreal being acceptable despite a civilised polish.