Israeli

[Mrr T]

TheRealFingers99 said:

You forgot your chum Amos Yaron.

"On 15 September, 63 Palestinian intellectuals, notably lawyers, medical staff and teachers, were individually identified and killed by an Israeli unit called Sayeret Matkal and from approximately 6:00 pm 16 September to 8:00 am 18 September 1982 a more widespread massacre was carried out by a Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia." Wikipaedia.

"The Sabra and Shatila massacre was the slaughter of between 762 and 3,500 civilians, mostly Palestinians and Lebanese Shiites, by the Kataeb Party, a Lebanese Christian militia, in the Sabra neighborhood and the adjacent Shatila refugee camp in Beirut, Lebanon.

It then accuses the Israeli with direct involvement with only one reference to source material a book by a highly controversial figure Alain Menargues. I have not read the book but I would not want to quote wiki based only on that source."

The massacre was investigated by the Kahan Commission

From Wiki the commission found no direct Israeli involvement in the massacre.

"Following a four-month investigation, on 8 February 1983, the Kahan Commission submitted its report, which was released to the public by spokesman Bezalel Gordon simultaneously in Hebrew and English. It concluded that direct responsibility rested with the Gemayel Phalangists led by Fadi Frem, and that no Israelis were deemed directly responsible, although Israel was held to be indirectly responsible."

The commission did find Sharon indirectly responsible but an article in Time magazine suggesting Sharon had any direct knowledge was should not to be correct.

Again Wiki
"Ariel Sharon sued Time magazine for libel in American and Israeli courts in a $50 million libel suit, after Time published a story in its 21 February 1983, issue, implying that Sharon had "reportedly discussed with the Gemayels the need for the Phalangists to take revenge" for Bachir's assassination.The jury found the article false and defamatory, although Time won the suit in the U.S. court because Sharon's defense failed to establish that the magazine's editors and writers had "acted out of malice," as required under the U.S. libel law."

Always treat Wiki with caution.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

This is an excellent John Pilger documentary, worth watching the entire program. but the Israeli relevant part starts around the hour point.

The war they do not want you to see - John Pilger

[AW111]

Grum - given your views on total warfare, I assume you think the Geneva Convention is rubbush that no true soldier would conform to?

[Mrr T]

AW111 said:

Grum - given your views on total warfare, I assume you think the Geneva Convention is rubbush that no true soldier would conform to?

Why do you think total war inconpatiable with the the Geneva Convention?

[Slaav]

Mrr T said:

AW111 said:

Grum - given your views on total warfare, I assume you think the Geneva Convention is rubbush that no true soldier would conform to?

Why do you think total war inconpatiable with the the Geneva Convention?

So is everyone now in agreement that 'total war' is what is going on here? (In the context of this particular conflict?

[Mrr T]

Slaav said:

Mrr T said:

AW111 said:

Grum - given your views on total warfare, I assume you think the Geneva Convention is rubbush that no true soldier would conform to?

Why do you think total war inconpatiable with the the Geneva Convention?

So is everyone now in agreement that 'total war' is what is going on here? (In the context of this particular conflict?

Cannot speak for other but I do not consider Israel is committing total war in Gaza. I believe Israel is attempting to treat civilians as "protected people" under the Geneva Convention even though there is no legal reason why it should.

[TheRealFingers99]

Mrr T said:

"The Sabra and Shatila massacre was the slaughter of between 762 and 3,500 civilians, mostly Palestinians and Lebanese Shiites, by the Kataeb Party, a Lebanese Christian militia, in the Sabra neighborhood and the adjacent Shatila refugee camp in Beirut, Lebanon.

It then accuses the Israeli with direct involvement with only one reference to source material a book by a highly controversial figure Alain Menargues. I have not read the book but I would not want to quote wiki based only on that source."

There are many, many sources. Keep up with the plot. In no particular order whatsoever:

1. Ari Folman's film Waltz With Bashir
2. Kuala Lumpur, 25 November 2013.-
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (KLWCT) after listening to the testimonies of 11 prosecution witnesses and voluminous documentary evidence and extensive submissions by the prosecution and amicus curiae delivered its judgement on the two charges against the State of Israel and retired Army general Amos Yaron.

General Amos Yaron and the State of Israel Found Guilty of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity
3. The Kaham Commission:

"[A]ll the facts and factors connected with the atrocity carried out by a unit of the Lebanese Forces against the civilian population in the Shatilla and Sabra camps.
Following a four-month investigation, on 8 February 1983, the Kahan Commission submitted its report, which was released to the public by spokesman Bezalel Gordon simultaneously in Hebrew and English. It concluded that direct responsibility rested with the Gemayel Phalangists led by Fadi Frem, and that no Israelis were deemed directly responsible, although Israel was held to be indirectly responsible.

The decision on the entry of the Phalangists into the refugee camps was taken without consideration of the danger - which the makers and executors of the decision were obligated to foresee as probable - the Phalangists would commit massacres and pogroms against the inhabitants of the camps, and without an examination of the means for preventing this danger.
Similarly, it is clear from the course of events that when the reports began to arrive about the actions of the Phalangists in the camps, no proper heed was taken of these reports, the correct conclusions were not drawn from them, and no energetic and immediate action were taken to restrain the Phalangists and put a stop to their actions.
The Defence minister Ariel Sharon was found to bear personal responsibility "for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge" and "not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed". Sharon's negligence in protecting the civilian population of Beirut, which had come under Israeli control, amounted to a non-fulfillment of a duty with which the Defence Minister was charged, and it was recommended that Sharon be dismissed as Defence Minister.

Initially, Sharon refused to resign, and Prime Minister Menachem Begin refused to fire him. However, following a peace march against the government, as the marchers were dispersing, a grenade was thrown into the crowd, killing Emil Grunzweig, a reserve combat officer and peace activist, and wounding half a dozen others, including the son of the Interior Minister. Although Sharon resigned as Defence Minister, he remained in the Cabinet as a Minister without Portfolio. Years later Sharon would be elected Israel's Prime Minister.

The Commission arrived to similar conclusions with respect to Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Rafael Eitan (tantamount to a breach of duty that was incumbent upon the Chief of Staff), as well as Director of Military Intelligence, Major general Yehoshua Saguy, and other Intelligence officials — though the Mossad was not reprimanded and parts of the report commenting on its role remain under military censorship." From Wikipaedia.

[TheRealFingers99]

Mrr T said:

Cannot speak for other but I do not consider Israel is committing total war in Gaza. I believe Israel is attempting to treat civilians as "protected people" under the Geneva Convention even though there is no legal reason why it should.

Well, of course not. Why should Israel treat people who do not exist and Beasts with Legs as humans by signing the appropriate conventions and adhering to them? Let's use flechettes and white phosphorous on them.............

[TheRealFingers99]

Mrr T said:

"The Sabra and Shatila massacre was the slaughter of between 762 and 3,500 civilians, mostly Palestinians and Lebanese Shiites, by the Kataeb Party, a Lebanese Christian militia, in the Sabra neighborhood and the adjacent Shatila refugee camp in Beirut, Lebanon.

It then accuses the Israeli with direct involvement with only one reference to source material a book by a highly controversial figure Alain Menargues. I have not read the book but I would not want to quote wiki based only on that source."

Fair enough. Were that the case. Menargues has been villified by the Zionist lobby as an anti-Semite. I've no idea on what grounds that charge was made.

But were that the case.

"The independent commission headed by Seán MacBride, however, did find that the concept of genocide applied to the case as it was the intention of those behind the massacre "the deliberate destruction of the national and cultural rights and identity of the Palestinian people". Individual Jews throughout the world also denounced the massacre as genocide.[17]

The MacBride commission's report, Israel in Lebanon, concluded that the Israeli authorities or forces were directly or indirectly responsible in the massacres and other killings that have been reported to have been carried out by Lebanese militiamen in Sabra and Shatila in the Beirut area between 16 and 18 September."

The massacre was also investigated by the Kahan Commission -- but it was an Israeli commission.

For an American viewpoint see New York Times which also quotes "Under Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger told the Israeli ambassador, Moshe Arens, that “Israel’s credibility has been severely damaged” and that “we appear to some to be the victim of deliberate deception by Israel.” "

There really is a shedload of stuff out there, not just Menargues.

Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Monday 22 September 01:40

[Scuffers]

TheRealFingers99 said:

Well, of course not. Why should Israel treat people who do not exist and Beasts with Legs as humans by signing the appropriate conventions and adhering to them? Let's use flechettes and white phosphorous on them.............

droped in again to see how this thread was going...

I see nothing has changed, the usual suspects are still frothing at the mouth etc etc...

just a clarity, just when was the last CONFIRMED DOCUMENTED use of flechettes by the IDF and please show how these are illegal in any context?

[Mrr T]

TheRealFingers99 said:

There are many, many sources. Keep up with the plot. In no particular order whatsoever:

1. Ari Folman's film Waltz With Bashir
2. Kuala Lumpur, 25 November 2013.-
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (KLWCT) after listening to the testimonies of 11 prosecution witnesses and voluminous documentary evidence and extensive submissions by the prosecution and amicus curiae delivered its judgement on the two charges against the State of Israel and retired Army general Amos Yaron.

General Amos Yaron and the State of Israel Found Guilty of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity

So for support you quote a film!!!!!!!!!!! Film is of cause such a reliable source of information, JFK, Argo, U*571 etec etc.

You then rely on a commission set up in KL by a Malaysian politician which had no access to any evidence from the IDF and appointed a council to defend Israel. perhaps I should set up my own independent commission. It would have as much validity as the one in KL.

TheRealFingers99 said:

3. The Kaham Commission:

"[A]ll the facts and factors connected with the atrocity carried out by a unit of the Lebanese Forces against the civilian population in the Shatilla and Sabra camps.
Following a four-month investigation, on 8 February 1983, the Kahan Commission submitted its report, which was released to the public by spokesman Bezalel Gordon simultaneously in Hebrew and English. It concluded that direct responsibility rested with the Gemayel Phalangists led by Fadi Frem, and that no Israelis were deemed directly responsible, although Israel was held to be indirectly responsible.

The decision on the entry of the Phalangists into the refugee camps was taken without consideration of the danger - which the makers and executors of the decision were obligated to foresee as probable - the Phalangists would commit massacres and pogroms against the inhabitants of the camps, and without an examination of the means for preventing this danger.
Similarly, it is clear from the course of events that when the reports began to arrive about the actions of the Phalangists in the camps, no proper heed was taken of these reports, the correct conclusions were not drawn from them, and no energetic and immediate action were taken to restrain the Phalangists and put a stop to their actions.
The Defence minister Ariel Sharon was found to bear personal responsibility "for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge" and "not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed". Sharon's negligence in protecting the civilian population of Beirut, which had come under Israeli control, amounted to a non-fulfillment of a duty with which the Defence Minister was charged, and it was recommended that Sharon be dismissed as Defence Minister.

Initially, Sharon refused to resign, and Prime Minister Menachem Begin refused to fire him. However, following a peace march against the government, as the marchers were dispersing, a grenade was thrown into the crowd, killing Emil Grunzweig, a reserve combat officer and peace activist, and wounding half a dozen others, including the son of the Interior Minister. Although Sharon resigned as Defence Minister, he remained in the Cabinet as a Minister without Portfolio. Years later Sharon would be elected Israel's Prime Minister.

The Commission arrived to similar conclusions with respect to Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Rafael Eitan (tantamount to a breach of duty that was incumbent upon the Chief of Staff), as well as Director of Military Intelligence, Major general Yehoshua Saguy, and other Intelligence officials — though the Mossad was not reprimanded and parts of the report commenting on its role remain under military censorship." From Wikipaedia.

So the only commission which did have access to IDF infiormation says the IDF had no direct responsibility for the massacre. Just an indirect responsibility because commanders should have know what was going to happen.

[TheRealFingers99]

Mrr T said:

So for support you quote a film!!!!!!!!!!! Film is of cause such a reliable source of information, JFK, Argo, U*571 etec etc.

Just a cotton picking moment: the film is:
a. made by an Israeli grunt who was there at the time
b. is autobiographical
c. calls on the experiences of other IDF grunts who were there at the time.

Have you ever even seen the film?

The great thing about the film is that it's easy to get hold of and accessible. It's hardly the only "evidence" I could point at. And, of course, I also point to much later stuff.

Mrr T said:

So the only commission which did have access to IDF infiormation says the IDF had no direct responsibility for the massacre. Just an indirect responsibility because commanders should have know what was going to happen.

The only commission which had access to the IDF information was the Israeli commission!

Don't you wonder why?

The Israeli historian Hillel Cohen talks of going to see Israeli documents relating to the Nakba. "Ah, you'll have to come back in ten years." Turn up ten years later "Ah, give it another ten years..........."

What is clear is that the Israelis had encircled the camps. The Israelis shared a command centre with the Phalangists and were in contact with Jerusalem. The Israelis provided star shells to illuminate the area. Reports of the massacre from IDF grunts were not acted on in anything like a timely fashion and, when they were, the Phalangists continued.

I see no rebuttal to:

For an American viewpoint see New York Times which also quotes "Under Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger told the Israeli ambassador, Moshe Arens, that “Israel’s credibility has been severely damaged” and that “we appear to some to be the victim of deliberate deception by Israel.” "

Further, there's the UN Report (actually, there are two UN reports on the same incident) regarding the Gaza Aid Flotilla which states:

"The three-member mission said there is clear evidence to support prosecutions of crimes such as wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, and wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.

It also voiced regret that the Israeli Government declined to cooperate with the mission, and that this is not the first time that this has happened.

“On yet another occasion of an enquiry into events involving loss of life at the hands of the Israeli military, the Government of Israel has declined to cooperate in an inquiry not appointed by it or on which it was significantly represented.” "

Emphasis mine.

Your position is rather like suggesting that someone charged with murder should provide the judge, jury and criminal law.

Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Monday 22 September 17:33

Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Tuesday 23 September 04:24

Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Tuesday 23 September 04:50

Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Tuesday 23 September 04:53

[TheRealFingers99]

Scuffers said:

just a clarity, just when was the last CONFIRMED DOCUMENTED use of flechettes by the IDF and please show how these are illegal in any context?

They're only illegal if you sign up to agreements rendering them illegal. As we've seen, Israel sees the use of white phosphorous, cluster munitions, flechettes and DIME type munitions as entirely legitimate. They've never taken the Geneva Convention seriously.

However:


"Civilians must not be subject to acts or threats of violence meant to spread terror among them and are
protected from indiscriminate attacks. Military forces must restrict their attacks to “objects” or property
that has a specific military purpose. Houses, places of worship, crops, water treatment plants and other
installations providing for the sustenance of non-combatants may not be harmed for the sake of a military
objective.18 As well, combatants must take every precaution possible to “[…] verify that objectives to be
attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and not subject to special protection[…]” avoid and
minimize loss of life, injury and damage to the extent of avoiding an attack if these outcomes are likely. 19"

(references)

18.Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Convention, Articles 51 – 54
19.Ibid., Article 57 1, 2(a. i-iii, b.)

Source is www.cjpme.org/DisplayDocument.aspx?DocumentID=638....

See also Guardian at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israe...

Shedloads of stuff on Haaretz, too, but you need a subscription.

[Scuffers]

TheRealFingers99 said:

Scuffers said:

just a clarity, just when was the last CONFIRMED DOCUMENTED use of flechettes by the IDF and please show how these are illegal in any context?

They're only illegal if you sign up to agreements rendering them illegal. As we've seen, Israel sees the use of white phosphorous, cluster munitions, flechettes and DIME type munitions as entirely legitimate. They've never taken the Geneva Convention seriously.

However:


"Civilians must not be subject to acts or threats of violence meant to spread terror among them and are
protected from indiscriminate attacks. Military forces must restrict their attacks to “objects” or property
that has a specific military purpose. Houses, places of worship, crops, water treatment plants and other
installations providing for the sustenance of non-combatants may not be harmed for the sake of a military
objective.18 As well, combatants must take every precaution possible to “[…] verify that objectives to be
attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and not subject to special protection[…]” avoid and
minimize loss of life, injury and damage to the extent of avoiding an attack if these outcomes are likely. 19"

(references)

18.Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Convention, Articles 51 – 54
19.Ibid., Article 57 1, 2(a. i-iii, b.)

Source is www.cjpme.org/DisplayDocument.aspx?DocumentID=638....

See also Guardian at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israe...

Shedloads of stuff on Haaretz, too, but you need a subscription.

so, your first link does not work and the second is to a re-cycled Grauniad artical that has a picture from 2009 in it - hardly credible evidence is it?

my point was (and you have just illustrated this) is that yes, they have used them in the past (actually, not very extensively), last actual documented use was 2008 (although there are a lot of reports from 2009 but none with anything like hard evidence).

the claims they have been used this year are based on a handful of flechettes being shown to the press, problem is they have the look of ones from 2008 re-cycled, no actual evidence of where and what they hit.

[Mrr T]

TheRealFingers99 said:

They're only illegal if you sign up to agreements rendering them illegal. As we've seen, Israel sees the use of white phosphorous, cluster munitions, flechettes and DIME type munitions as entirely legitimate. They've never taken the Geneva Convention seriously.

However:


"Civilians must not be subject to acts or threats of violence meant to spread terror among them and are
protected from indiscriminate attacks. Military forces must restrict their attacks to “objects” or property
that has a specific military purpose. Houses, places of worship, crops, water treatment plants and other
installations providing for the sustenance of non-combatants may not be harmed for the sake of a military
objective.18 As well, combatants must take every precaution possible to “[…] verify that objectives to be
attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and not subject to special protection[…]” avoid and
minimize loss of life, injury and damage to the extent of avoiding an attack if these outcomes are likely. 19"

(references)

18.Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Convention, Articles 51 – 54
19.Ibid., Article 57 1, 2(a. i-iii, b.)

Source is www.cjpme.org/DisplayDocument.aspx?DocumentID=638....

See also Guardian at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israe...

Shedloads of stuff on Haaretz, too, but you need a subscription.

Please do some research before you post.

The only treaty which limits the use of a specific weapon is on Land Mines and Israel and the USA are not signatures to the agreement.

As for the Geneva Convention you are quoting Protocol 1 which again Israel and the USA have never signed up for.

[Mrr T]

TheRealFingers99 said:

Mrr T said:

So for support you quote a film!!!!!!!!!!! Film is of cause such a reliable source of information, JFK, Argo, U*571 etec etc.

Just a cotton picking moment: the film is:
a. made by an Israeli grunt who was there at the time
b. is autobiographical
c. calls on the experiences of other IDF grunts who were there at the time.

Have you ever even seen the film?

The great thing about the film is that it's easy to get hold of and accessible. It's hardly the only "evidence" I could point at. And, of course, I also point to much later stuff.

And the film JFK is made by an American so must be the truth about the assassination of Kennedy!!!

[Mrr T]

TheRealFingers99 said:

Mrr T said:

So the only commission which did have access to IDF infiormation says the IDF had no direct responsibility for the massacre. Just an indirect responsibility because commanders should have know what was going to happen.

The only commission which had access to the IDF information was the Israeli commission!

Don't you wonder why?

The Israeli historian Hillel Cohen talks of going to see Israeli documents relating to the Nakba. "Ah, you'll have to come back in ten years." Turn up ten years later "Ah, give it another ten years..........."

What is clear is that the Israelis had encircled the camps. The Israelis shared a command centre with the Phalangists and were in contact with Jerusalem. The Israelis provided star shells to illuminate the area. Reports of the massacre from IDF grunts were not acted on in anything like a timely fashion and, when they were, the Phalangists continued.

Do you expect Israel to hand over secret military documents to a commission, set up by a Malaysian pollution with a clear agenda, and no international standing.

As for a quote from Hillel Cohen my Grandmother said to never suck eggs its about as relevant.

As for the rest its just conjecture.

I do not have time to do any detailed research but when you say:
1. "Israelis shared a command centre with the Phalangists". From a purely military stand point even if they where physically in the same location from s security perceptive I am sure the Israel commanders would have ensured there was complete separation of operational commands.
2. "were in contact with Jerusalem". I am sure they were but without knowing operational orders such contact could have been no more than hourly updates to detailed discussion of battle plans.
3. "The Israelis provided star shells to illuminate the area". This was a military operation so I am sure star shells where used illuminate the area.
4. "Reports of the massacre from IDF grunts were not acted on in anything like a timely fashion". What reports. May only have been vague reports, so they would wait for more information. Commanders also have responsibility to there own troop, so that might have been the commanders first priority. Define timely fashion.
5. "and, when they were, the Phalangists continued". So you blame Israel because the massacre continued even after they insisted it stopped.

[Mrr T]

TheRealFingers99 said:

I see no rebuttal to:

For an American viewpoint see New York Times which also quotes "Under Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger told the Israeli ambassador, Moshe Arens, that “Israel’s credibility has been severely damaged” and that “we appear to some to be the victim of deliberate deception by Israel.” "

Further, there's the UN Report (actually, there are two UN reports on the same incident) regarding the Gaza Aid Flotilla which states:

"The three-member mission said there is clear evidence to support prosecutions of crimes such as wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, and wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.

It also voiced regret that the Israeli Government declined to cooperate with the mission, and that this is not the first time that this has happened.

“On yet another occasion of an enquiry into events involving loss of life at the hands of the Israeli military, the Government of Israel has declined to cooperate in an inquiry not appointed by it or on which it was significantly represented.” "

Emphasis mine.

Your position is rather like suggesting that someone charged with murder should provide the judge, jury and criminal law.

So your final support comes from the views of a US official and the UN.

Since the UN seems to spend much of its time condemning Israel but seems incapable of launching enquiries into Bosnia, Rwanda, Crimea, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, etc etc.I shall ignore there viewes.

Your view seems to be that if some one is prosecuted for murder the prosecutor should appoint the defence lawyer, the jury, the judge and choose the law.

If the International Court of justice in the Hague ever becomes involved then I will expect Israel to cooperate.

Edited by Mrr T on Wednesday 24th September 11:22

[TheRealFingers99]

Scuffers said:

so, your first link does not work and the second is to a re-cycled Grauniad artical that has a picture from 2009 in it - hardly credible evidence is it?

my point was (and you have just illustrated this) is that yes, they have used them in the past (actually, not very extensively), last actual documented use was 2008 (although there are a lot of reports from 2009 but none with anything like hard evidence).

the claims they have been used this year are based on a handful of flechettes being shown to the press, problem is they have the look of ones from 2008 re-cycled, no actual evidence of where and what they hit.

Ah. So someone has harvested flechettes, stuck them in walls and people, and re-used them? Crafty buggers, these Palestinians!

The link to http://www.cjpme.org/ seems to not be working due to a server error. No doubt it'll return, sooner or later.

In the meantime, from Israel's Egyptian allies: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east...

It would be hard, indeed, to find "objective" evidence on your terms -- AFAIK the Israelis have yet to allow UN back into Gaza. If there are no "objective" observers, there can be no objective evidence.

[TheRealFingers99]

Mrr T said:

And the film JFK is made by an American so must be the truth about the assassination of Kennedy!!!

Watch the goddamn film! And, again, the guy was there.

a. JFK was not made by an American grunt who was there at the time
b. JFK is not autobiographical (obviously!)
c. JFK does not call on the experiences of other US grunts who were there at the time.

The film is actually overly gentle -- I think -- on Yaron:

Wikipaedia again:

"Two hours after the first Phalangist force entered Shatilla camp a mixed group of Phalangists and Israeli officers were observing the attack from the roof of the forward command post when one of the militia men in the camp radioed his commander Hobeika asking what to do with 50 women and children who had been taken prisoner. Hobeika's reply was overheard by an Israeli officer, who testified that he said: "This is the last time you're going to ask me a question like that; you know exactly what to do." Other Phalangists on the roof started laughing. Amongst the Israelis there was Brigadier General Yaron, Divisional Commander, who asked Lieutenant Elul, his Chef de Bureau, what the laughter was about and Elul translated what Hobeika had said. Yaron then had a five minute conversation, in English, with Hobeika. What was said is unknown."

I note that at no point do you actually dispute my outline of what happened.

I note that you still have not contested the independent MacBride commission's report.

I note that you have yet to respond to the New York Times report.