-Caveat Lector-
goolie smith wrote:
>
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> <sigh>
>
> ok, give me the answers to these questions
>
> Was Ariel Sharon in command of the occupied area where the massacres took
> place ?
Yes he was.
>
> Is there a Geneva convention (4th) which places responsibility of a
> population upon the person in charge ?
I don't know. But if there is, that's not the law under which Sharon is
being charged. It is a special law recently enacted but it's not clear
to me by whom.
Are you well versed in international law?
> Are you jewish ?
Yes.
> These questions should sort it out, the first two will show why sharon
> should be indicted as a war criminal,
No they don't. You don't know that law. You are making presumptions based
on ignorance. For Sharon to be indicted as a war criminal he would have
to have had intent. Further more, it would have to be proven. As it stands now,
propaganda aside, he had the nearby sport stadium cleaned and ready to move
the inhabitants of Sabra and Shatilla into for identification. He was looking
for Arafat's glorious fighters left behind to start new terrorist cells. There
were also Shiites, Muslim Arabs who lived in that neighborhood before the
Palestinians flooded in. The Israelis had no truck with these people.
So there is no evidence pointing to malevolent intent by the Israelis. The
opposite is true. There are witnesses who have publicly stated that Sharon
gave orders to protect non-combatants.
The worst he could be accused of and responsible for is negligence due
to bad judgment. The Lebanese Christians had been fighting for supremacy in
Lebanon for a long time. They were corrupt, thieving fascists who would use
the Israelis as much as the Israelis were using them. They fought among
themselves viciously. Tribe against tribe, and faction against faction. They
didn't want to be dominated by Syria. The Muslim Arab Lebanese majority didn't
mind Syria and didn't want to be dominated by the Christians who were backed
by Israel. The Christians hated the Palestinians who came to Lebanon after
being driven out of Jordan by King Hussein for starting an insurrection among
the 60% Palestinian population of Jordan. The Palestinians were not nice
neighbors and wanted to take over Southern Lebanon.
The country was in chaos, and the PLO had a perfect launching platform with
a weak government from which to carry out a war of attrition against Northern
Israel.
The Phalangists and the Israelis had common enemies but different agendas.
The Israelis wanted the Phalangists to rule Lebanon. After the Syrians
assassinated Bashir Gemayel, the Israelis took charge of West Beirut even
though they promised they wouldn't. Then they inherited Sabra and Shatilla.
Then the Sabra and Shatilla hit the fan. The Israelis were trapped in a mess
of their own making.
Sharon was the political scapegoat for the mess in Lebanon. He deserved
what he got. I am not an admirer of Arik Sharon.
So you really don't know what you are talking about. And you don't really
care much for what actually happened either do you? I'll bet you don't
know the names of the actual killers. Do you? In all this discussion you
have
not once called for the capture, indictment and trial of the actual persons
in charge of the massacre. Why is that? Care to venture a guess Goolie.
But it is all a moot point. He will not be brought up on any kind of
charges anyway. He is a sitting
head of state. And he has not lost a war against the West.
It's all about Palestinian propaganda. Just as the subject bar stated.
> the last one will show the rest of us
> why you dont want to see the truth.
Don't be so presumptuous again. The war criminal charges are not true
because they are not true. Not because I don't want to see the truth.
Sharon was a young officer in charge of a mass killing in the removal of
an Arab village in 1948 I believe. I don't remember the name of the village
but it is well known. THAT is the crime he should be indicted for. Not
Sabra/Shatilla. The Palestinians know that quite well. Sabra and Shatilla
is a much more recent and gaudy massacre still in most people's memory.
Finally, and you should really think about this, there was absolutely NO
BENEFIT whatsoever to ordering the massacre, and every reason on earth not
to. Sharon was obligated by treaty to protect the Palestinian civilians
after
the Americans and others protected Arafat's losers as they left Lebanon. He
was under world scrutiny and Israel was being condemned by the usual
suspects for the invasion. While I'm sure he would have loved to finish off
Arafat and Fatah, he had no reason to harm women, children and old people.
They were not a threat to Israel.
No one remembers why Sharon went went into Lebanon
originally. It was to finally get rid of the PLO who were shelling and
rocketing and infiltrating northern Israel every day for years. They were
killing Israelis on a daily basis.
The plan was to ferret out any Fatah fighters left behind by Arafat in the
camps. This is why the Israelis surrounded the camps while the Phalangists
went in to find and kill them. Arafat's "fighters" committed many massacres
and atrocities against the South Christians' villages. The Phalangists wanted
revenge.
Sharon allowed the Phalangists to go after Fatah in the camps for several
reasons. He had sustained many Israeli casualties in the invasion. The invasion
was not popular among all Israelis. He didn't want more casualties so he turned
it over to the Phalangists who were more than happy to kill PLO.
The Israelis trained the Phalangists. The Israeli commanders expected them
to behave like soldiers. They were not stupid for having that expectation.
But Sharon could not know that his Palangist commander was secretly working
for Syria. And he could not know that Hobeika was about to create a huge
diversion from the Gamayel assaination by creating a massacre of disgusting
proportions.
I'm sure there were Israeli soldiers who didn't care. Just as there are
Palestinians
who see suicide bombers that kill innocent Israeli civilians as martyrs and
heros. This is war. These people hate each other.
Keep this posting. In the highly unlikely case that this will ever go to
trial, this information will come out.
Joshua2
>
> >From: "Nurev Ind." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Conspiracy Theory Research List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: [CTRL] Sharon War Criminal:
> >StupidgullibleLiberalsandPalestinianpropaganda. 1/2
> >Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:53:30 -0400
> >
> >-Caveat Lector-
> >
> >goolie smith wrote:
> > >
> > > -Caveat Lector-
> > >
> > > ah nurev, nurev, nurev dont tell me your going to start personal
> > > attacks against me.
> > >
> > > Yes i did read the second part, the disscussion here is on Ariel
Sharon
> >not
> > > the syrians or the phalange or any other group. If you would like we
> >could
> > > discuss that on another thread, but this thread has the topic of
"Sharon
> >War
> > > Criminal".
> >
> >No. The subject is - Re: [CTRL] Sharon War Criminal: Stupid gullible
> >Liberals
> >and Palestinian propaganda. 1/2
> >
> >Which means that the information you describe below is Palestinian
> >disinformation.
========================================
Sharon sued in Belgium over 1982 Palestinian massacres
BRUSSELS
8 JUNE 2001
http://metimes.com/2K1/issue2001-23/reg/sharon_sued_in.htm
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is being sued in a Belgian court
for the 1982 massacres of 800 to 2,000 Palestinian civilians in
Lebanese refugee camps, the daily Le Soir reported on June 1.
The suit was filed under a unique 1993 law that allows Belgian courts
to try persons here, regardless of their nationality, for genocide
and other crimes against humanity committed abroad.
Sharon was due to visit Brussels next week, but Israeli television
reported the prime minister had cancelled the trip in the wake of a
suicide bomb attack in Tel Aviv, which killed 17 people.
The newspaper said Belgian judicial authorities were studying whether
the suit against him was admissible under terms of the law, which is
currently being used to try four Rwandans in connection with the 1994
genocide in their central African country.
The plaintiffs in the suit against Sharon are a mix of Palestinians,
Lebanese, Moroccans and Belgians grouped in an ad hoc committee.
They accuse Sharon of allowing Christian militias to slaughter
between 800 and 2,000 Palestinian refugees at the Sabra and Shatila
camps located in an area of Lebanon controlled by the Israeli
military after Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon when Sharon was
defense minister.
An Israeli commission of enquiry in 1983 found Sharon indirectly
responsible for the killings, a finding that forced him to resign his
post.
And the United Nations has officially classified the Sabra and
Shatila killings as acts of genocide, Eric David, international law
professor at the Free University of Brussels, told Le Soir.
Last January, when he was campaigning for prime minister, Sharon
expressed his regrets for the "terrible tragedy" of the 1982
massacres, but refused to apologize.
"What it was," he said in a press interview, "was an act of killing
carried out by Arab Christians against Arab Muslims."
Arabs also blame Sharon for provoking the current intifada with his
visit to east Jerusalem's Al Aqsa mosque compound, the third holiest
site in Islam, last September 28.
[ Which is also false, but pervasive PLO propaganda. - J2 ]
AFP
=========================================
Tribunal head: I didn't say Sharon is indictable
By David Zev Harris and Michal Meyer
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/06/20/News/News.28659.html
JERUSALEM (June 20) - The BBC Panorama documentary on the role of
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Sabra and Shatilla is continuing to
cause waves in Israel and in judicial circles.
A leading international war-crimes lawyer, who participated in the
program, is insisting he did not say Sharon should be indicted for
his role in the massacre of Palestinian refugees in the Lebanese
camps.
Despite reports to the contrary, Judge Richard Goldstone said he told
the BBC he would talk about international war-crimes law in general
but would not speak about the specifics of Sharon's involvement.
Goldstone, a former chief prosecutor for the UN's criminal tribunals,
made his comments in an interview with Jerusalem Post Radio.
The following is taken from the official transcript of the BBC
program:
Panorama: "I understand that as a judge in a South African court, you
don't want to get into labelling people in other countries as 'war
criminals,' but in your assessment of command responsibility, isn't
it reasonable to say that if responsibility goes all the way to the
top, to the person who gave the orders, that potentially makes Ariel
Sharon a war criminal?"
Goldstone: "Well, it depends very much on the facts, but if the
person who gave the command knows, or should know, on the facts
available to him or her that there's a situation where innocent
civilians are going to be injured or killed, then that person is as
responsible - in fact, in my book more responsible, even - than the
people who carry out the orders."
In his interview with Jerusalem Post Radio, Goldstone said: "I agreed
to speak to [the BBC] as an expert on the law in general, on command
responsibility, but I said I would not in any way comment on any
liability, criminal or civil, of Ariel Sharon and I didn't do so.
"I haven't yet seen the program, but if it comes across that way it's
incorrect... I certainly didn't comment on the responsibility of
Sharon."
The program was broadcast in the same week a Belgian court begins
considering whether Sharon can be brought to trial for his part in
the 1982 massacre.
At least 23 survivors of the Christian Phalange militia rampage in
the camps are trying to see those responsible are put behind bars.
Their lawyer, Michael Verhaeghe, claims those responsible include
then defense minister Sharon, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Yaron, who was
chief infantry and paratroop officer, and the Phalangists, who did
the actual killing.
In an interview with Jerusalem Post Radio, Verhaeghe said all that
interests his clients is justice.
"These crimes being the most serious offenses possible, also in
Belgian national order and in international order, the maximum
sentence is life imprisonment," said Verhaeghe. "According to our
legal analysis, we consider [Sharon] to be morally responsible... In
our file there are more-than-sufficient indications of guilt."
Later today, a magistrate will be officially appointed to investigate
the matter.
The Palestinians do not have Belgian citizenship, but Verhaeghe
maintains they have the right to bring the matter to a court in
Brussels. In 1993, Belgian law was changed to allow this type of
complaint to be filed by non-nationals. This, said Verhaeghe, was in
line with the Nuremberg, Tokyo, and Eichmann decisions.
However, Ruth Lapidot, a professor of international law at Hebrew
University, believes it is highly unlikely Sharon will be brought to
trial, given the rulings contained in the 1949 Fourth Geneva
Convention, which deals with the protection of people in times of
war.
"It says... 'they have an obligation to search for persons alleged to
have committed or to have ordered to be committed,' which means the
penal sanctions apply only to a person who either has committed
himself or has ordered to be committed some of these terrible deeds,"
Lapidot explained.
The International Committee of the Red Cross interpretation of the
convention suggests no legal responsibility is incurred by those who
do not intervene to prevent or to put an end to a breach of the
convention, she noted.
Two additional considerations make it unlikely that Verhaeghe's
mission will succeed, said Lapidot. "Heads of states and prime
ministers cannot be brought to trial while serving, according to
international law."
Additionally, if Belgian law is not in conformity with international
law, Belgian jurisdiction could be ruled out. "The Belgian court can
exercise universal jurisdiction with regard to offenses under
international law but not offenses which the Belgians think are
appropriate."
Despite Lapidot's skepticism, the Belgian magistrate, known as the
judge of instruction, will spend the coming weeks deciding what
action should be taken, including whether to call witnesses and to
hold a full trial before a jury. The magistrate's work is secret in
the first stage, while he or she is acting on behalf of the state.
Asked how long Sharon would have to serve in jail if found guilty,
Verhaeghe cited the Rwandan war criminals recently sentenced in
Belgium to a 15-year-term, saying they will actually serve five or
six years.
To hear the full interviews with Goldstone, Verhaeghe, and Lapidot,
click on www.jpostradio.com.
� 1995-2001, The Jerusalem Post
====================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
