 |
| Premier
Sharon: hiding behind excuses? |
Last weekend, the BBC World satellite station, as well as the
Middle East Broadcasting Corporation, (both London-based
stations viewable in Lebanon), replayed a Panorama program shown
the week before on Britain's BBC1.
The subject of the program was Ariel Sharon’s involvement
in, and responsibility for, the Sabra and Chatila massacres, a
topic that has generated commendable attention of late.
The Panorama program came as a Belgian magistrate received a
complaint in the name of survivors of the massacre prepared by
three lawyers, a Lebanese, Chibli Mallat, and two Belgians,
Michael Verhaeghe and Luc Walleyn. The British anthropologist,
Rosemary Sayegh, and a Palestinian refugee, Sana Hussein, who
gathered testimonies from dozens of victims, assisted the legal
team.
For a moment, the Panorama program seemed to influence the
British prime minister, Tony Blair. Prior to Sharon’s passage
through London on his way to the United States for a meeting
with George W. Bush, there were reports that Blair would not
meet the Israeli prime minister. The inference was that Blair
preferred to stay away from the Sabra and Chatila entanglement.
He later backtracked, no doubt at Israel’s insistence.
The US has had no qualms dealing with Sharon. One day, a
history will be written of how the more robust democracies
transacted with those perpetrating crimes against humanity. The
conclusion will be that they were among the most willing to look
the other way when their interests were at play.
The US used Slobodan Milosevic to arrive at the Dayton
accords in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in the same way as they
“cultivated” former Nazis after the Second World War.
Much the same can be said of Washington’s dealings with
Sharon. The notion that the Israeli prime minister might, in
fact, be a war criminal is so alien to the American psyche, that
the US media have largely played down the Sabra and Chatila
allegations.
And yet the details of Sharon’s involvement in the
massacres have long been known, thanks largely to Israeli
sources, particularly the report of the Kahane commission
appointed to investigate the killings in 1982. The commission
found that Sharon was indirectly responsible for what had taken
place in the camps.
However, all this meant was that he had not directly executed
the victims — a choice role reserved for the Lebanese Forces.
In a far more powerful passage, the commission noted that “the
Minister of Defense bears personal responsibility” for the
massacres.
Since 1982, Sharon has hidden behind the lamest of excuses in
arguing his innocence: He has said that he could not have
predicted what would take place in the camps.
To this day, Israeli spokesmen pursue this frayed argument,
when the Kahane commission proved beyond a doubt that numerous
Israeli commanders, including the chief-of-staff, Raphael Eitan,
feared the Lebanese Forces would perpetrate a massacre. The
argument that Sharon was somehow gulled, is, to say the least,
inane.
But there is more. According to the two Israeli authors,
Ze’ev Schiff and Ehud Ya’ari, Sharon did two things before
the massacre, raising serious doubts as to his responsibility in
inciting the Lebanese Forces.
First, prior to the Israeli army’s entering West Beirut, he
rallied the Lebanese Forces, who were demoralized by Bashir
Gemayel’s death the day before, and virtually forced them to
participate in the military operation.
And second, he was overheard telling Lebanese Forces
commanders that he wanted the PLO’s infrastructure in Beirut
removed: “I don’t want a single one of them left,” he
said.
When his interlocutor, Elie Hobeika, asked how civilians and
combatants could be distinguished, Sharon failed to respond. Had
he wanted to avert the killing of innocents, Sharon would have
clarified an order that could so easily have been
misinterpreted.
As a footnote to the ongoing legal case against Sharon, it is
worth referring to the article by one Saleh al-Naamani, a
political commentator writing for the Hamas weekly, Al-Risala.
Naamani recently wrote that, though Sharon bore
responsibility for the massacres, those who had actually
perpetrated the killings, the Lebanese Forces, were never
punished. He singled out Hobeika and Fadi Frem for particular
blame.
Naamani has a point. The pursuit of Sharon should not be used
as an excuse to cover up Lebanese responsibility for the
massacres.
Sabra and Chatila was as much a Lebanese crime — in some
cases perpetrated against other Lebanese — as an Israeli one.
If justice is to be served, then it might as well be
comprehensive.
*Michael Young is a political analyst
Related articles:
Sharon’s
BBC 'trial' airs on cable and satellite this weekend
Massacre
survivor to testify against Sharon in Brussels court
BBC
study of Sharon's Lebanon war draws 'anti-Semitic' charge
