Video of Today's suicide bombing - Jan 29th

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
.

As to the "control access" bit about Sharon, let us put forth a hypothetical. Would Churchill have been complicit in America's warcrimes if Bomber Harris had been an American and it was the Americans who were weekly firebombing German cities at night? After all, he controll our "access" to British airfields.

First, YES.

Second, the analogy is a weak one: The Israelis were in essence the guardians at the gate. If a policeman chage with protecting someone in a room(these were refugee camps surrounded by the IDF- the IDF was responsible for security) lets his sworn enemy inside that room armed, and then shuts the door, that policeman can NOT claim innocence if a crime is commited there becuase it was his action that made the crime possible.

Israel not only helped arm and equip the phalangist, but again, allowed then access to the camps and failed to act as the killing went on.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


First, YES.

Second, the analogy is a weak one: The Israelis were in essence the guardians at the gate. If a policeman chage with protecting someone in a room(these were refugee camps surrounded by the IDF- the IDF was responsible for security) lets his sworn enemy inside that room armed, and then shuts the door, that policeman can NOT claim innocence if a crime is commited there becuase it was his action that made the crime possible.

Israel not only helped arm and equip the phalangist, but again, allowed then access to the camps and failed to act as the killing went on.

But they said they just wanted to disarm the Palestinians.

Now, put yourself into Sharon's shoes for a moment. Your ally says that they will go into the camps to disarm the Palestinians. This will save the lives of one's own troops if the Palestinians resist. It is not certain that the ally will deliberately massacre women and children. What would you do?

Besides, the Palestinians were enemies of the Israelis just as much as they were to the Christains.

[Az]

Second, the analogy is a weak one: The Israelis were in essence the guardians at the gate. If a policeman chage with protecting someone in a room(these were refugee camps surrounded by the IDF- the IDF was responsible for security) lets his sworn enemy inside that room armed, and then shuts the door, that policeman can NOT claim innocence if a crime is commited there becuase it was his action that made the crime possible.

Since when refugee camps only have civilians? The Phalangists weren't allowed there to kill people. That was their own initiative.

[blackice]

chegitz guevara did again saw one link none related...

Your distraction was nice thanks, gave me time to go back and read what I did to confirm you have absorbed to many man made chemicals.

Now: Are you a nutbar? One side kills anyone the other tries not to, what stats are you refering to post em....

I dare you to come on lammer post em...

[Ned]

Azazel, it is interesting how Che never admits that his adversary has scored major points against his argument. He simply drops out of an argument when defeated.

A real crass act.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


But they said they just wanted to disarm the Palestinians.

If the IDFG felt this was an issue-they could have done it. It is beyond absurd to think the IDF believed the Pahalngist to be trustworthy and up to the task-without resrting to violence.

Now, put yourself into Sharon's shoes for a moment. Your ally says that they will go into the camps to disarm the Palestinians. This will save the lives of one's own troops if the Palestinians resist. It is not certain that the ally will deliberately massacre women and children. What would you do?

The Phalangist had a history with the Palestinians. Sharon knew this history- Again, why he was found by Israel ITSELF as indirectly responsible for the whole massacre.

Besides, the Palestinians were enemies of the Israelis just as much as they were to the Christains.

Actually, no, not back then. Study up on the history of the Lebanese civil war.

Since when refugee camps only have civilians? The Phalangists weren't allowed there to kill people. That was their own initiative.

A refugee camp (by the very definition of the camp) is ful of people to be protected and cared for by warring parties according to the rules of war. Again, why the hell have the phalangist do the job of disarming this place and not the IDF?

So I have a camp full of Tutsis- and I decide there might be some armed tutsis inside- so I will send Hutu mlitiament I have armed right in to do the disarming instead of my own more reliable forces..oh, and I will do it a few weeks after the Tutsis have killed the leader of the Hutu.....


Give me a break- the IDF was responsible for the safety of the people in those camps according to all international law. There is a reason folks Israeli investigators found Sharon indirectly responsible. And personally I think he and the field commanders bear greater responsibility for what happened those days.

[Edan]

The Phalangist had a history with the Palestinians. Sharon knew this history- Again, why he was found by Israel ITSELF as indirectly responsible for the whole massacre.

Just like Bush bears indirect responsibility for actions of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, given that we supported them. We should have known better.

Also, Sharon won a libel suit in the US against Time Magazine when they stated that Sharon had foreknowledge of what would occur.

Actually, no, not back then. Study up on the history of the Lebanese civil war.

The Palestinians weren't the enemies of Israel back then? Coulda fooled me.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Just like Bush bears indirect responsibility for actions of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, given that we supported them. We should have known better.

The situation was not that distant..let me repeat this again: the camps were fully surrounded by IDF forces, behind the Israeli front lines, had IDF troops guarding all extrances and exists. So the IDF (and ts leaders) bear more than a distant responsibility for the going on of that day. Also, unlike the US and the northern allience, the IDF provided direct support in the form or provisions/equipment to the phalangists

Also, Sharon won a libel suit in the US against Time Magazine when they stated that Sharon had foreknowledge of what would occur.

Foreknowledge is different from "could have made an educated guess". I may not have foreknowledge that Kerry was going to be the big winner today, but it was a good guess. So Time may have gone out of bounds by accusing Sharon of KNOWING it was going to happen, but at the same time, it would have been a good guess that something would happen=hence the finding.

The Palestinians weren't the enemies of Israel back then? Coulda fooled me.

Fomr 1950 to 1982, a grand total of 250 israelis had been killed by Palestinian terrorist. Compare this to the brutal civil war that developep in Lebanon, drawing in not only Israeli but Syria earlier. Not the same by far.

[Alexander's Horse]

BOO!

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap

Also, unlike the US and the northern allience, the IDF provided direct support in the form or provisions/equipment to the phalangists

Umm, the US did help arm and supply the Northern Alliance and knew what to expect would happen

(also, the same thing would apply to Russia during WW2).

[Edan]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
BOO!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Umm, the US did arm the Northern Alliance (also, the same thing would apply to Russia during WW2).

The US did not give much support to the NA until we got involved directly in afghanistan, and never to the same degree as the Israelis equiped the phalangists.

[Eli]

Quote:

The Palestinians weren't the enemies of Israel back then? Coulda fooled me.

Fomr 1950 to 1982, a grand total of 250 israelis had been killed by Palestinian terrorist. Compare this to the brutal civil war that developep in Lebanon, drawing in not only Israeli but Syria earlier. Not the same by far.

The entire invasion was directed against the PLO. You cant say that the Pals and Israel were not enemies.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Eli


The entire invasion was directed against the PLO. You cant say that the Pals and Israel were not enemies.

NOt with the same vehemence as today, which is the obvious point some people keep missing! Back in 1982, Israeli might have invaded to remove the PLO (and install a friendly Christian regime), but the real gut hatred for the palestinians was among the Lebanese Christians (and some muslims as well). Israeli soldiers, (unless ordered) would not have gone into those camps and committed the attrocities commited-and commanders in the IDF knew that-they also could ahve guessed that sending in the Phalanghist might lead to trouble-they provided access, and that is why they bear responsibility.

[Ned]

GePap, you really have to admit that Sharon's initial call was reasonable under the circumstances. I am not certain about what happened next. Perhaps Sharon was informed of attrocities and failed to act. Maybe that's where his failure of command begins.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, you really have to admit that Sharon's initial call was reasonable under the circumstances.

It was utterly unreasonable. If he was worried about armed Palestinians inside, send in the IDF to secure the place- the leader of the Phalangist had just a few weeks before been assasinated by the PLO-a huge blow to the Phalangist. The Phalangist were looking for vengance, and Sharon should have known.

He might have wanted to keep possible IDF loses low, but the IDF also had responsibilities to safeguard civilians.

[Ned]

Besides, the Israelis have no history of massacring women and children. It must be presumed, if one is fair, that Sharon had no intention that such an attrocity occur. I think that is why he prevailed in the libel suit.

[Az]

The Phalangist had a history with the Palestinians. Sharon knew this history- Again, why he was found by Israel ITSELF as indirectly responsible for the whole massacre.

Because they had to blame someone. If they wouldn't, people would say it was a cover-up.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ned
Besides, the Israelis have no history of massacring women and children.

Untrue - see the Deir Yassim incident, amongst others.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

Because they had to blame someone. If they wouldn't, people would say it was a cover-up.

Nope. The largest protests in Israeli history (and the few really large geenral protests I have heard of) were against the abuses in Lebanon (as it were, Lebanon is Israel's vietnam). A lot of people were mad he was not found directly resposible but instead indirectly responsible.

[Sirotnikov]

Untrue - see the Deir Yassim incident, amongst others.

Deir Yassin is as always taken way out of proportion.

What happenned is that following a short combat between Iraqi commandos and the Lehi and Ezel troops, several commandos dressed up as women, hid among regular populace and then started shooting at unsuspecting Israeli troops. They (expectedly) panicked when they saw that supposedly innocent people beging shooting at them, and began spraying the crowd.

As a result IIRC around 120 people were killed. A massacare, though not an intentional one. When the soldiers came to their senses the massacare was stopped. Most of the population was alive and tended by the Israelis.

The Israelis also immediately invited the Red Cross to the place.


Sadly, after that, all sides began spreading unrealistic rumors.

The Palestinians exaggerated because they hoped it would infuriate the arab street and Arab leaders would increase their efforts to defeat the Israelis.

The Arabs exaggereated to defame Israel.

The Lehi and Ezel right wingers exaggerated in hope to create fear and have the Palestinians submit quicker or leave.

The left wing government exaggerated because they disliked the Lehi and Ezel and searched for excuses to blame them for going against official policy and dismantle them for good.


What you have in the end, is a myth about an intentional massacare with hundreds of dead.

Now don't get me wrong - I'm very critical of what they did and the fact they eventually killed 120 people.

But I can understand that when you are in combat, and suddenly become unsure of who is truely a civilian and who isn't you act according what you percieve to be self defence.

When I posted that I'm going to the IDF, I think somebody here quoted the murphy laws of war : "When in doubt - empty your clip".
That is probably what happenned in Deir Yassin.

[Sirotnikov]

Nope. The largest protests in Israeli history (and the few really large geenral protests I have heard of) were against the abuses in Lebanon (as it were, Lebanon is Israel's vietnam). A lot of people were mad he was not found directly resposible but instead indirectly responsible.

Just because alot of people hoped that Sharon was found guilty doesn't mean he should have been found guilty or that he infact was.

I think that the Israeli court agreed with the claim that Sharon had acted unresponsibly, and as a commander had a responsability for the well being of the civilians under his control.

As a result he was fired, banned from holding a position having to do with the ministry of defense, and would have ended his career by now, if not Arafat.

[Sirotnikov]

.. If the palestinians had guided missiles and jet fighters and tanks they could be "nice" as well. They don't. The Palestinians attack civilians because they don't have the power in general to do otherwise.

That is a very nice arguement based on the premise that the human nature is good.

But it's false. Especially in the middle east.

You can see it in the way Iraq and Iran chose to use unconventional weapons (chemical, suicide) against each other even though they had other weapons.

You can see it in the way Iraq gassed curds instead of arresting them or using military.

You can see it in the way the Arab governments chose to sponsor terrorist commando groups in the 50s and 60s (the Fedayeen) instead of declaring war on Israel.


Israelis on the other hand always attempted to only target military or combatant targets.

Ezel and Lehi had some exceptions but they saw themselves as fighting fire with fire (eg arab terrorism with jewish terrorism). Arab terrorism started in 1921. In the 30s and 40s it evolved to 'gang wars' where jewish armed gangs fought palestinian armed gangs, and both at times targetted civilians.

The Israeli mainstream didn't like this and did the maximum to rid of that.

The Palestinians and the Arab world adopted it as a strategy.