Talk:Sabra and Shatila massacre/Archive 1

Surely it was an act of genocide, but committed by Labanese Christians against Lebanese Muslims. Not that te article, no matter how hard it tries, is not able to show that the Israeli government knew in advance about the intentions of the Phalangists, much less that it had any general policy about Palestinians in Lebanon. Perhaps it'd be better to move the quote down the article? --Uriyan

Sure, go ahead. I just added the quote for balance. I see the essence of the Arab-Israeli conflict as Arabs trying to destroy Israel and Israel defending itself against destruction. The Arab justification is that Israel stole "their" land; it belongs to non-Jewish Palestinians only. The Israeli justification is that they have reclaimed "their" land; it was theirs historically, plus the world owes it to them because of the Nazi genocide of Jews in the Holocaust.

Note the similarity of the viewpoints. Each side is fighting for "their" land. Kinda makes you wish the Messiah would come and settle this, eh? -- Ed Poor

This is a bit of a simplification (although I myself have difficulty going deeper). Lots of bad things have been done both by Jews and Arabs, the symmetry sometimes being amazing. Nevertheless, I believe in the Jewish people's right to exist, which is only possible in one place, Israel - which is the main lesson of the Holocaust. I'm saddened by the fact that Arabs have not yet generally recognized Israel's right to exist. Yes, it often seems that Messiah would be needed; but I believe that peace is ultimately in the Arabs' grasp. Some of my thoughts were put to writing, although so far nothing I could publish. --Uriyan

Yes, I have simplified the conflict. I don't think the current US legal model of "he's right, you're wrong" is adequate in this context. I don't think the Messiah will come as a judge and simply say one side is right. I also don't think he'll come as a military conquereor to vanquish Israel's foes. (In fact, I think the Jewish Messiah already came 2,000 years ago but wasn't recognized as such; and that he must have a Second Advent; but that is perhaps another story.)

If the Messiah comes with a parental heart, he might find a way to stop his children from fighting. --Ed Poor

Well, I think we both mean not so much Messiah himself but the very concept of redepmtion. But until the world changes (be it with Messiah or because better nurture will make us much smarter and peace-loving), Israel does not have much choice but to fight, for the loss in this fight will mean the final extinction of the Jewish people. --Uriyan

---

I'm not a pacifist in the absolute sense. Sometimes, fighting is good. I wrote the article on moral equivalence with the example of two schoolboys punished for fighting not to justify the concept of moral equivalence but to repudiate it. If one boy was a bully and an assailant, the other has a right to defend himself. In the US, the term violence has become to mean "unjustified use of force" on the one hand, which leaves writers grasping for a term meaning "use of force" in general. Movies showing "violence" are bad, but when analyzed it generally turns out that even self-defense is labeled "violence". Thus the word is used with two meanings, and rational discussion is pre-empted.

Well, it's been nice dialoguing with you, but I'm going to give it a rest for a while. I'm veering off into an entirely different subject. --Ed Poor

I believe, however, that the two sides are not fully equivalent. Israel recognized the Arabs' right for a state; the Arabs did not do so with Israel. --Uriyan

---

There was an internal Israeli inquiry which found Ariel Sharon culpable in this incident, in fact found it to be a war crime, I believe. They are a democracy so supposedly we should trust their fact finding methods to some degree except where "national security" might cause them to deny something.

As to the politics, the Zionists are one tribe among many in that region, and while any tribe that takes good care of the land and reclaims desert ought to have a place to stand, the uprooting of olive trees speaks to the immorality of certain aspects of the occupation.

There is no reasonable hope that Israel can survive another 10-20 years of the kind of confrontation it is in now, with biological weapons and missiles everywhere. US help won't matter.

Now, how does this affect the article? Not much. The incident happened, and as long as we keep the word "because" out of it, and refer to various groups interconnections and military motives so as to imply the conclusions, fine.

Also, there is an "in memoriam" on the September 11th incident report (which is very badly out of NPOV in other ways) and we need a standard: does that go on all massacres, all massacres of current interest, all recent massacres, or what?

---

as their command post directly overlooked one of mass grave sites

I can find no confirmation of that. In fact, the Kahan report says explicitly the Israeli HQ was 300 meters away and behind buildings (so that it was impossible to see what was happening inside). Finally, I don't think the Phalangists actually buried someone during the massacre (bodies are reported to be found on the streets, not in some grave site). Also, most Arab sources claim the death toll figure to be 700, so I fixed that accordingly. --Uriyan