The Jewish/Israeli
Perspective
As the occupying force in Lebanon during the summer of 1982 when the massacres in Sabra and Shatila were committed by the Phalange militia, and because of its well-publicized stance towards Palestinians and the establishment of an independent Palestine as well as constant reports of violence and oppression, Israel took more of a brunt from the Palestinian side than the Phalange itself. Reasons for this are clearly related to the fact that Israel, as a political unit, can be held accountable for its policy and military action not only by the world, but by its own people. Israel's involvement with the massacre is controversial, as the Palestinians claim Israel had full knowledge of the massacre as it was unfolding a short distance from their positions surrounding the camps, and the Israelis deny any such knowledge. Especially important to the Israeli perspective is the role of Ariel Sharon, as he was held responsible by an Israeli commission on the massacre, and now holds the title of Prime Minister of Israel. Because of the nature of these facts, few items can be obtained outlining an "Israeli Perspective" that would be comparable to the outspokenness of the Muslim/Palestinian perspective. In light of the fact that Israel is a legitimate political entity, such outspokenness is understandably diminished due to absence of motivation on the parts of the Israeli citizens. The events of Sabra and Shatila took place in a different country and have not had the kind of impact on the Israeli national consciousness that would call for great defense of the Israeli actions. However, an Israeli commission (Kahan commission) did hold Ariel Sharon responsible for the events at Sabra and Shatila.
The current state of mind is succinctly captured in this excerpt from the Jewish Bulletin News (http://www.jewishsf.com/bk010622/ip13a.shtml) about a BBC program highlighting a current suit against Ariel Sharon in Belgian courts for his involvement at Sabra and Shatila:
" Israel's Foreign Ministry put out a
statement saying that "Israel views with the utmost gravity the distorted,
unfair, and intentionally hostile nature of the Panorama program. The timing of
the program, 19 years after the events in question, shows a lack of good faith
and an attempt to tarnish Israel and its leader. "
In an article by the Jewish American Library (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Sabra_&_Shatila.html), there is also expressed the attitude of unfairness towards the Israelis in regards to the international media. The choice of words, phrasing and emphasis on atrocities committed by Muslims as well as the grief of Israelis neatly establishes the Israelis as victims of the slaughter as well:
" Ironically, while 300,000 Israelis demonstrated in Israel to
protest the killings, little or no reaction occurred in the Arab world. Outside
the Middle East, a major international outcry against Israel erupted over the
massacres. The Phalangists, who perpetrated the crime, were spared the brunt of
the condemnations for it.
By contrast, few voices were raised in May 1985, when Muslim militiamen
attacked the Shatila and Burj-el Barajneh Palestinian refugee camps. According
to UN officials,
635 were killed and 2,500 wounded. During a two-year battle between the
Syrian-backed Shiite Amal militia and the PLO, more than 2,000, including many
civilians, were reportedly killed. No outcry was directed at the PLO or the
Syrians and their allies over the slaughter. International reaction was also
muted in October 1990 when Syrian forces overran Christian-controlled areas of
Lebanon. In the eight-hour clash, 700 Christians were killed-the worst single
battle of Lebanon's Civil War."
This same mindframe is mirrored in an angry letter sent in response to a BBC article:
" [QUOTED PARAGRAPH FROM ARTICLE:] 'The
idea that what happened at Sabra and Shatila should not be held up to public
scrutiny on the grounds of the general beastliness of the Middle East may be
seductive to those who killed and to those who are accused of failing in their
responsibilities to the murdered civilians. But if the rest of us are SEDUCED
by this argument we abandon the most basic principles of democratic
accountability. And that way tyranny lies.'
[LETTER TO THE EDITOR:]
YOU, Mr. Keane seem to be SEDUCED by this argument, otherwise you would have
investigated the massacre done by Hafez el'Assad in 27th of March 1958, in the
Syrian village of al'Hamam. He killed there 18000 people. Was he ever a
candidate for being judged in the international court for war crimes ???
But of course, your OBJECTIVENESS determined you to deal with the 800 people
killed in Sabra and Shatila !!
If you are interested in investigating war crimes, here are some interesting
suggestions for you:
1. Hafez el'Assad killed 18000 people at al'Hamam.
2. Churchill bombed Berlin. Did he make sure to bomb only NAZIS or his bombing
hit also innocent non-nazi germans ??
3. Roosvelt and Churchill signed the Yalta agreement with Stalin. Did they know
that the russian soldiers massacre and rape innocent people when they conquest
?? They have an INDIRECT responsibility for that. They SHOULD have known !!
4. Did you ever think of inviting Mr. Yeltzin or Putin to the international
court, for killing more than 100000 innocent Chechnians ?? Or maybe Russia is
TOO strong, so BRAVE human rights fighter deal only with weaker countries like
Yougoslavia ??
5. You investigated Yasser Arafat for allowing corruption, abuse of free speech
and torture. What about KILLING of thousands of innocent jews in TERROR attacks
??? You still didn't investigate him for that !!"