The CSM ran my column on Iran in today’s edition. I think it came out pretty well despite some hasty last-minute edits.
In addition, today was the day they finally ran a letter from someone affiliated with ‘CAMERA’, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. It criticized me for writing in my column on Shatila last month that the ugly 1982 massacre there had been “Israeli-orchestrated”. You can see the text of the letter here.
I quite agree– based on my own extensive study of the evidence– with letter author Gilead Ini that the massacre in question “was carried out by Lebanese Christian militiamen of the Phalangist party.” (Though I’d tend to put quotes around that adjective “Christian”.)
I also think Mr. Ini is quite entitled to express his judgment–which he bases on his reading of the Israeli government’s own Kahan Commission enquiry into the events– that,
- Far from having orchestrated the massacre, Israel was found by the commission only to be indirectly responsible, since it failed to consider the danger in allowing the Phalangists to enter the camp. Israeli officials were similarly faulted only for indirect responsibility.
So, as he admits, Israel’s own commission had concluded that the Israeli government and its officials did bear a degree of responsibility, even if only “indirect”, for what occurred… Fair enough…
In an exchange with Jonathan on the Comments board of this recent JWN post I wrote that what happened in Shatila in those terrible days,
- would not, I think, have happened without both essential parts of the “agency” involved: the Phalangists ready and eager to engage in the massacre; and the Israeli military decisionmakers and lower-rank people who made and undertook the plan to take the Phalangists to the camp and support their presence there as they continued (for around 40 hours, I think) the massacring.
Anyway, I’m glad that Mr. Ini’s letter goes further than I had space to do in my column and spells out for the CSM’s readers that Ariel Sharon, “defense minister at the time” was criticized by name in the commission’s report for the role he’d played regarding the massacre, specifically– and here he was citing the commission report–
- ‘for having disregarded the danger’ posed by the Lebanese Phalangists who entered the camp, and ‘for not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or reducing” this danger.’
I am delighted that Mr. Ini spelled those points out since I didn’t have the space to do so in my original column.
I wish he had also had the space to note that, because of the way it viewed Mr. Sharon’s role, the Kahan Commission report stated that:
- We have found, as has been detailed in this report, that the Minister of Defense [Mr. Sharon] bears personal responsibility. In our opinion, it is fitting that the Minister of Defense draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office – and if necessary, that the Prime Minister consider whether he should exercise his authority 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.”
Readers interested in learning more about the role that Israel’s military and its then-defense Minister played in the massacres in Shatila and neighboring Sabra can find lots of useful material–including some very moving survivor testimonies– if they go here.
It is always an honor to be the target of a CAMERA attack! Congratutations, Helena. No doubt this is not the first time for you.
It has always been my understanding that the Israelis did not merely “allow” the Phalangists to enter the camp. It was always my understanding that the Phalangists were acting as the agents of the Israelis and were sent into the camps by the Israelis for the purpose of “cleaning them out”. In fact, it appears very clear from more than one source that the Israelis transported some of the attackers from other parts of the country so they could take part in the massacre.
It is also not even remotely debatable that the Israelis knew very well that sending the Phalangists into the camps was very likely to result in a massive slaughter of civilians. That they were warned of this possibility has been well documented. That they proceeded with the project with the full knowledge of what was going to happen is not questionable. That the Israelis knowingly facilitated the slaughter is also unquestionable.
In short, Helena, given all the facts it is difficult to contest your statement that the Israelis orchestrated the massacres of Sabra and Shatilla.
Except, Shirin, that Helena never says she was subject to any attack. As usual your imagination and pre-conceived conclusions are getting the best of you.
David
Shirin,
Robert Fisk, who was living in Beirut at the time and went to the camps just after this occurred, has a detailed account in his book “Pity the Nation” and definitely agrees with your and Helena’s version.
David, you would be funny if you weren’t so sad.
Jeremy, Robert Fisk is a rare individual indeed when it comes to Middle East reporting. He speaks, reads and writes Arabic, and he really knows the region. He goes below the surface of the stories, and he challenges those in power.
Thanks Shirin. I can indeed be funny and sometimes also sad.
Would love to read you when you are funny, seriously.
O.K., David, so you’re not a Yank, but you are something uglier. You are a stalker.
There is nothing wrong with a bit of ad homninem. The personal is political, after all. It’s when there is nothing else but ad hominem that it gets ugly.
You, David, have passed that point too often. Cut it out!
Interesting how David makes an factual comment and he is met by name-calling. I guess that is a symptom of dogma.
… also, it is interesting that you were ‘delighted’ by the CSM letter you mentioned, Ms. Cobban. Is it possible reason you were so pleased is that, amongst all the dogma, you don’t often get to read a forthright take on an issue, without doublespeak? (e.g. saying that if you had more room in the column, you would cite the Kahan comission, yet at the same time neglecting the main findings of the commission – that “that absolutely no direct responsibility devolves upon Israel.” (btw, that means the massacre was not “israeli-orchestrated)
Really, Jones, and what exactly was “factual” about David’s comment?
David said, “Helena never says she was subject to any attack.” (And reading the CAMERA letter, it clearly isn’t an attack, but rather a reference to what some commission concluded).
That warrants personal insults? I don’t understand why people with different points of view can’t have a civil exchange. It mostly boggles my mind when it is those on the “left” who are the ones attacking people for having different opinions. I might expect such a thing from Bill O’Riley, et. al. But sadly, I’m learning that the left can be easily as closed minded as the other half.
Jones,
1. Helena said she was “criticized” by CAMERA. Criticism is in fact a form of attack. Furthermore, you may not know this, but I do know that Helena is a Brit. Brits are prone to understatement. (pardon the stereotype, Helena)
2. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with CAMERA. If so, you are unaware that CAMERA is a small group of extreme right wing Zionists who go like a pack of pit bulls after anyone who even suggests that Israel is not perfect, or – heaven forbid! – that the Palestinians may have a legitimate grievance or two. Helena was indeed subject to a CAMERA attack, and Kudos to her for it.
3. Perhaps you are new here and are unfamiliar with David’s history of personal insults against anyone who does not agree with his Arabs = the personification of evil/Israel = the personification of good stance.
4. I always find it fascinating that so many people are able to see the world only as a right vs left dichotomy. It’s even more fascinating that those who find “left” a negative thing are invariably supportive of violence, war, destruction, oppression and killing – as long as their side is doing it, of course. It never seems to occur to the “right wing vs left wing” types that there might be those of use who do not fly on any wing at all, but who simply know right from wrong, fact from fiction, good from bad.
Shirin,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You are in fact right when you say that I’m unfamiliar with David or any history he may or may not have. If he has initiated name calling in the past, then my criticisms go to him, too.
On the other hand, after taking a look at the CAMERA website, it seems pretty clear that you are being, well, prone to overstatement. From what I saw, they avoid political comment, so it seems inaccurate to call them “extreme right-winged” anything. They clearly have a point of view different than your own, but, as I said earlier, that’s perfectly legitimate, isn’t it? I’ll point out that in the letter Helena linked to, the writer didn’t attack Helena. He didn’t call her point of view as “extreme left wing anti-Zionists who goes like a pack of pit bulls after anyone who even suggests that Israel has a legitimate grievance, or – heaven forbid – that the Palestinians may not be perfect.” He simply pointed out a fact. That said, CAMERA seems to be no more extreme or partisan than you or Helena — in fact, they seem less so!
And forgive me for pointing out one more contradiction in your last post. You suggest, for some reason, that I see things as a left vs. right dichotomy. Yet you were the one who attacked a group for being “extreme-Right”
But maybe the most interesting thing you said was, “criticism is a form of attack.” It is, imho, important to remember the difference between rabid, unsubstantiated criticism vs. nuanced, fact based argument. So when someone calmly points out a fact — even if it is in support of Israel or in contradiction to Helena — and the response is hysterical or angry… well, I wonder if that means the responders should instead pause, take a breath, and consider that, just maybe, in that particular case Israel might not be the demon, or Helena might be wrong.