89 thoughts on “Sabra, Shatilla and the Fire Next Time – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. What makes you think Obama cares any more for Iranian corpses than he does about Iraqi, Afghani, Yemeni, Pakistani, Libyan, or Syrian corpses? He revels in them. That’s his job. The problem is not stopping Netanyahu, who won’t do anything without a US green light; the problem is stopping the US, Obama and/or Romney, whose shot-callers are one and the same.

  2. ““Sure, the I.D.F. is going to stay in West Beirut and they will let the Lebanese go and kill the Palestinians in the camps.”

    Whoa. Is this quote before or after the US brokered the deal that allowed the PLO to sail to Tunisia?
    If this quote came before the PLO’s flight to Tunis, than Sharon was talking about the PLO terrorists that were still in the refugee camps. If the quote came after the flight to Tunis, than Sharon would have known that the camps were now empty of fighters.

    Big difference.

  3. I was watching a panel show today made up of Muslims of varying opinions on the Innocence of Islam video and one statement that struck me came from an academic who said that this video came out at exactly the right time to keep any articles, comments or discussion about the massacre out of the mainstream media. ie to distract people from those events by creating a new hysteria. That sounds very plausible.,

      1. Joel: “Yes. Plausible to idiots and anti-Semites who believe in Jewish conspiracy theories. Which one are you?”

        To be fair, there were a couple of dates that coincide with the release of that video:
        1) The anniversary of 9/11
        2) The anniversay of Sabra and Shatilla.

        I don’t personally think there is a connection, mainly because that video was sitting on youtube for months before attention was paid to it.

        So you really need to finger the guy who first drew attention to it and show that he was put up to it by someone with their own agenda.

        Unlikely, but not impossible.

        1. It was apparently on the verge of being forgotten when someone posted a trailer dubbed in Arabic and drew it to the attention of a pretty extreme Egyptian broadcaster who could be expected to over-react.

          Someone has a stirring stick and they seem to want disorder in Egypt, most of all.

          1. The Arabic version of the trailer was posted on 6th September, not months before. So a connection either with 9/11 or the Sabra/Shatila anniversary looks valid.

      2. @Joel,
        Wow, you are a hotheaded little hasbarat aren’t you? You come into the conversation as soon as possible using the first pillar of hasbara, Denial. You have a quick shot at Deflection but then you rush straight to the fourth pillar instead of the third. The third is Delay, the fourth is Deride. You move too quickly to be a good hasbarat but I’m sure your handlers will have a chat to you. I await your reappearance as the discussion dies down. Unless of course you wish to deride me again which surely means you lose.

        1. You actually think it’s plausible that the release of the video was timed in relation to the anniversary of the massacre? And anyone who disputes this is using “hasbara” pillars? Talk about denial!

          1. @Bob Mann,
            You are using P1,2,3 & 4. You either did not read “Well I see an idiot but it aint Watcher” or just ignored his explanation. That’s Denial. You Deflect by negatively commenting on my perfectly reasonable assertion when you could have made a genuine comment on topic. That’s also part of Delay. I expect you to pick at parts of my comments for as long as you can so long as it doesn’t bring us back to the original topic. And of course you Deride me. Did I get anything wrong?

          2. The question was the plausibility of the linkage. Believing such linkage is plausible is not the same as believing that there is linkage. Certainly, entertaining such plausibility doesn’t make someone EITHER and idiot or an anti-semite. That is where this went off the tracks. Do also think that entertaining such plausibility suggests an idiot or anti-semite?

      3. Joel – I think the timing of the video hoopla may be worth examination, as per Watcher465. Am I an idiot or an anti-Semite? Just want to where I stand in your universe.

          1. Who do I hate? No one people, race, ethnicity, or political persuasion (though Republicans and guys like you really put me to the test!) Having said this, I am pretty much averse to anyone who believes and supports the view that the Zionist conquest and occupation of other people’s land was ever, and remains still, deeply grounded in concepts of decency, justice, honesty, respect and peaceful means and efforts. If you fall into this category, then I am averse to you which only gives me low standing in your blank universe.

            The truth of what Zionist Jews have done, and continue to do, to other peoples, their property and rights, does not bear dispassionate scrutiny. And for what? An ersatz national entity for Jews that serves no purpose other than to exploit addled aging Jewish philanthropists and placing many otherwise clear-headed American Jews into the difficult position of supporting the interests of a foreign state, first and foremost.

          2. You are the hater Joel. I know you can’t see that. It’s partly your upbringing and partly your sociopathic personality. Your comment is not for Davey but for all of us that disagree with you and your ideas, is it not? In short you are a spiteful loser. And you will never see that, or if you like you can never see that.

  4. Jews fighting for a better world, including a fair peace in Middle East should be aware of the right wing positions of the leaders of the Roman Jewish Community. When Ariel Sharon suffered from that brain emorragy in January 2006 they held a religious service celebrating him as a hero, no less than Moses or king David. Even many Italian gentile politicians joined them. Even the Nobel prize Ythzak Rabin had never been as much object of worship as the sick and dying Sharon.
    He killed civilians in Jordan, in the Negev, he was one of the responsibles for many casualties in Lebanon. He killed many civilians in the West Bank in the years 2002-2005..especially between 2001 and 2003. The former chief rabbi of Rome, professor Elio Toaff, once considered a wise and open minded man said- Sharon has always sought what is good for Israel- Years before the president of the Roman Community Leone Pasermann said. In Israel -Palestine there are unsolved problems yet because Sharon is too moderate- Many progressive Jews in the US lay the blame of paralyzing the Obama administration at the feet of Abe Foxman, joe Liebermann, the AIPAC; have a look at Rome, please. What a sort of fanatic and bigot leaders guide the local Jewish community!!!!

    1. No need to blame the leaders of your country`s Jewish community. If you check you will find the same phenomena in every single country- the mainstream Jewish organizations, with their heads, stand firmly behind the Israeli government, while those against are hugely outnumbered. The trans-historical Jewish people, despite being dispersed around the world for millennia, still speak by and large with one voice.

      1. The leadership of the Jewish community truly represents very few people. Those who disagree with the right wing pro Israel views of Jewish leaders are actually in the majority. As for one voice, that was a UJA slogan from the 80s gracefully retired. The fact that you’ve attempted to dust it off indicates how hoary, tired & out of date yr views are.

        1. “The leadership of the Jewish community truly represents very few people.” Hate to ever argue with you… in this case you are very wrong.

        2. You believe that the majority of Jews are not spoken for by the mainstream Jewish organizations? I think there may be something to this as these organizations are in fact supported by a just a handful of philanthropic Jews. On the other hand, so many Jews I run into are of the “Israel right or wrong” heroic ilk, it’s hard to see this majority.

  5. I was pleased to see the piece but I also understood why the NY Times published it – they are pro-Obama, and they sense, as many people do, the Israeli hand in trying to turn the electoral tide towards Mitt Romney, who has adopted the shrill, Likud-like rhetoric sympathetic to Netanyahu. Bibi, by the way, is making the rounds of the US TV talk shows, his purpose to diss Obama and to try to turn Americans’ opinions to favor an attack on Iran.

    The most repulsive, and most suspicious thing Netanyahu has said is so Islamophobic as to be mind-boggling. He pointed to the mobs of Muslims in recent protests (ostensibly against a video but it’s much more complicated than that) and asked Americans if they wanted “those people” to possess nuclear weapons.

    1. Mary, there is no Islamophobia intended there – the nexus between a rogue regime and The Bomb is at the heart of the matter and the cause for the great scare. If Iran gets a democratic/liberal regime, it would be still an Islamic country but the nuclear issue would have been an altogether different ballgame. While it will be still on the table, for fear of further regional proliferation, nobody would consider hurting Iran, let alone bombing it.

      1. The topic is not Iran, nor will I respond to your attempt to steer the conversation away from what I said. It’s not the first anti-Islamic yammer to come out of Bibi’s beak. Nor was I the only one to notice it. Bait and switch is so common in hasbara that at least you should try to be a little more imaginative.

      2. In terms of “roguishness” no state is even competitive with Israel. Israel’s criminal reach is beyond question using both insidious techniques and blunt military force, a record unmatched anywhere and certainly not by Iran. And this “democratic/liberal” state presumably actually has bombs! Would anyone call the military-dominated state of Israel “democractic/liberal”?

        And if nukes would “still be an issue” in the even of regime change in Iran how do you think Israel (and its “allies”) would deal with it? I suggest it is not “proliferation” that is feared in Israel but “balance of power,” the ability of any state to force a standoff with Israel thereby upsetting Israel’s expansionist and hegemonic ambitions? Do you dispute this? Is it still “proliferation” at issue?

        1. Actually, I have no dispute with you on the “balance” thing. There is no doubt that in older times when Israel acquired that capability it was viewed by it as an “insurance policy”, a deterrent, in an era where Israel was not only much smaller in all respects but also “throwing it into the sea” was a commonly used phrase (and expressed hope) in the Arab world. Proliferation is a more recent fear and major issue – but even as such it is not in a mutually exclusive relationship with the other one.

          1. Suffice it to say that Israel is not above using Islamophobia to achieve its ends and to cover its crimes. I hope Bibi enjoyed the NY Times article. Perhaps a little reflection would make him understand cause and effect. Especially on the anniversary of Sabra & Shatila, and when America’s largest newspaper finally states publicly what everyone living in the middle east has known all along – that Israel and the US were complicit, and Israel participated, in the massacre. Let’s spell it out for those who seem not to get it. If you repeatedly slaughter your neighbors, they will not like you. They will want to kill you or kick you out of the neighborhood. So no wonder Israel worries about Iran or anyone else possessing nukes.

        2. “In terms of “roguishness” no state is even competitive with Israel’.

          ‘Better to be judged by 12, than carried by six’–New York street wisdom.

        3. No. Richard. Not the Mob.

          My aphorism comes from people who live in the ‘bad neighborhoods’ in New York City.

          Whether looked out through the prism of history, or current events, the Levant is a ‘bad neighborhood’.

          1. The Levant was a difficult place to live way before Zionism. The Mongols were even fighting here. Mongols.
            There’s no natural wealth or water to sustain the inhabitants and religious fanatics of all stripes try to call it home.

            To heap scorn and ridicule on the current custodians, the Jews, who’ve tried to make peace with their neighbors, seems a bit unfair.

          2. @ Joel,
            Your credibility grows lower by the minute. I don’t know any New York street wisdom but I guess you mean, “better to be judged by…..?” Hell I don’t know what you mean. Anyway you can tell me if this is the way you want to go. Assuming you know. It must be fun knowing what the people in the “bad neighbourhoods” say.

          3. @Watcher

            I’ll dumb it down.
            Better to be judged by a jury of twelve, than carried by six pallbearers at your funeral.

            Meaning, in ‘bad neighborhoods’, the need for survival trumps the rule of law.

          4. You see Joel, it’s still bullshit. Meaningless bullshit. Dumb it down some more so even I can get it. You Bad Boy!

  6. Richard, how do you expect Obama to stop Bibi ?
    Israel is a sovereign state, and as such have the right to take own actions.
    How do you expect Obama to stop Israel before the airplanes took depart on their way to Iran ?
    & how do you expect him to stop the airplanes post the departure ?
    using diplomacy ? using what ever means necessary including force ?
    IMHO the interests of the US and the Interests of the state of Israel are a bit different Re. Iran and while the US is willing to accept Iran as a nuclear threshold state, Israel is trying to deny them that capability.

    The work of intelligence revolves around two main approaches/branches:
    1. Capabilities Related Intelligence (CRI)
    2. Intentions Related Intelligence. (IRI)

    CRI – is simple, you need to acquire enough information to determine what type of military capabilities the other side has. Generally speaking, Western intelligence services are good in analyzing and collecting information about the others side capabilities, such achievements enabled the IAF to destroy Hezbollah’s long range capabilities during the first air-strike at the war in 2006, Such abilities allowed the US to destroy the Iraqi Anti-Aircraft defense systems during DS etc.

    IRI – is complicated. Generally speaking western intelligence services are doing extremely bad analyzing the other sides intentions, hence WIS are almost always wrong with their analysis and there are many examples, from Perl-Harbor via the 1973 war until recent days where USA intelligence services failed in predicting the Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt etc.

    There are few rules to the work of intelligence – one of them, is always assume you don’t know everything.

    The debate is really simple:
    Those who favor an attack on Iran before the Iranians cross the nuclear threshold and become a threshold state, favor the capabilities approach. The rational behind it is: we don’t know and we would not be able to determine the other side’s intentions with enough certainty, therefore we would like to prevent them from having the capability, so we won’t need to decipher their intentions. That’s the approach adopted by the state of Israel.

    Those who preach for restraint favor the intentions approach. The rational behind their argument is: our intelligence is so good that we would be able to determine the other side’s intention with enough certainty, in such time frame that will enable us to act and prevent Iran from making the “run for it” from the nuclear threshold to an actual nuclear weapon. Such an approach (an extreme arrogant approach) was/is adopted by the US.

    Those who favor the US approach do not consider one of the basics rules in the work of intelligence – always assume you don’t know everything. The Iranians throughout the last 15 years have always surprised WIS (western intelligence services) with their actions, combined with the success ratio of WIS to predict and analyze the other side intentions throughout history(Russia, Japan, Arab’s etc) that approach involves an extreme high risk.

    1. Let me stop you after your second sentence. The US has made a habit of unilaterally jumping into sovereign states and destroying their regimes on a regular basis. There is nothing stopping them from jumping on Israel, after all Israel has been bleeding them dry for decades. And history is littered with stories of enemies becoming friends and vice versa. Israel has never defended the rights of a sovereign state except their own rogue state. Israel has never respected the UN but will always use them.

      I have to stop, I’m not well. I’ll continue tomorrow.
      I didn’t want to lose this. Can you save a part comment? Does anyone know coz I’m not that computer literate.

  7. According to Amnon Kapeliouk, in his “Sabra et Chatila. Enquête sur un Massacre”, based on Red Cross sources, roughly 2.000 were killed in the two camps, and further 1.000-1.500 disappeared. PLO-sources state 3.000 died, Robert Fisk, one of the first foreign journalists to go into the camps listed 1.700.
    By the way, many of the killed were Lebanese, 20-25%, particularly in Chatila, poor Lebanese families or often Lebanese women married to Palestinians.

    1. I think we’ll never get the real numbers. Neither the ‘international community’ nor the Lebanese authorities seem to be too interested in investigating, among other topics, the Israel implication. According to the McBride Commission, Tsahal not only brought the Phalangists, the Lebanese Forces and SLA-members (all Christian militia) into the camps, they also blocked the entrances, lighted up the camps during the night for the massacre to go on without interruption, and procured bulldozers to the Phalangists to bury the deads.
      Many eyewitnesses swear that Israeli soldiers participated in the massacres, particularly in the beginning (cf. French journalist Pierre Pean in Le Monde Diplomatique 2002).
      There’s a German documentary (Arabic, German subtitles only): testimonies by Phalangists who participated in the massacres, also containing informations about the Israeli implication. I don’t know if there’s a English version. Those people were never brought to court, and some of them continued playing a major role in Lebanese politics (cf. Elie Hobeika)

  8. Stating the obvious, the most striking part of the story is the Israeli nation proceeding to reward this and many other of his actions by making him Prime Minister…

    Cynical at best.

  9. Former Assistant Deputy Secretary of State Dr. Steve Pieczenik says Israel plans to attack Iran before the U.S. elections of Nov. 6., and, that an attack on Iran will assuredly kickoff WWIII, according to him.

    Moreover, Pieczenik, a man whose career inspired the character Jack Ryan of the Tom Clancy book series, says the ‘October Surprise’ will not take place in October. Instead, the big surprise will come earlier, in late September.

    Dr. Pieczenik says the specific date of the strike on Iran is Sept. 25th or 26th, Yom Kippur—the Jewish holiday, which commences in the year 2012 at sundown on the 25th, and ends at nightfall, the following day.


    1. Ariel Sharon is often praised since his stroke mainly because of his “repentance” after becoming Prime Minister, notably:

      1) Being the first PM to call Israel’s hold of the WB “kibush” (occupation)

      2) Famously saying “things you see from here [as PM -s] you don’t see from there”, meaning that rhetoric and hyperbole no longer hold when you reach high office.

      3) The disengagement from Gaza as a serious attempt to change the face of the conflict.

      The Israeli right wing hate Sharon and call him a leftie and a traitor (and Sharon may well have found an even more tragic end, like Rabin, were he not to have suffered the stroke).

      And Yatta, I have no idea whether an Iranian attack is planned, but if I am sure of anything, it is that the only day that the attack will not take place is Yom Kippur. It’s the worst possible scenario for the Home Defence aftermath, and shows a total misunderstanding of the status of Yom Kippur in the Jewish-Israeli psyche.

      1. Yes, Sharon decided that sending all those settlers from Gaza to the West Bank would be a great way to colonize the West Bank more quickly, protecting it from any possible future where Israel could be forced to give all of it back to the Palestinians. Such was his “serious attempt to change the face of the conflict.”

        1. I will never understand this “facts on the ground” stuff. The “facts” in the WB were Palestinian, and still are actually, and nobody paid much attention to this in planting settlers and stealing property. Why should anyone believe that Israeli “facts” in the WB require any special deference? These “facts” can be removed with the same determination and brutality which which they were established. Why do these “facts” govern so many discussions and arguments?

          1. “Why should anyone believe that Israeli “facts” in the WB require any special deference? ”

            Because initially, Israel felt that she needed ‘strategic depth’ in order to defend herself?

          2. Israel could have had peace without the strategic depth by yielding land (WB) for peace. As ever, Israel is not interested in peace but defense. In this regard, the Palestinian facts have to yield to Israeli facts. What other aggression and terror must everybody sit still for because paranoids in Israel think they “need” this or that? By opting for war, conquest and occupation, Israel has foregone the high ground and, frankly, has no justifiable purpose any longer. All that is left to it is power, materialism, profits and further theft. The Jewish people can find their fortunes elsewhere in the world: Who needs to live there with revenge ever present forever?

          3. Wow, stretching the “There is no Palestinian partner” lie all the way back to 1967! That’s hasbara of the first order.

            One of the reasons Israel couldn’t find suitable Palestinian collaborators is that they refused to deal with the PLO, which was the only political group that existed at that time that claimed to speak for all Palestinians.

          4. Joel — Barak made it clear that one of the biggest fears among leadership was that a partner would emerge. When it appeared that PLO was convincingly bidding for that role and Israel would now actually have to negotiate, Israel decided to attack them (Lebanon). Yeah, peaceful Israel. Even now — the most moral army on earth. What a sad joke.

          5. No. The PLO was in it’s infancy and would not have negotiated with Israel over anything.

            Local West Bank Arabs would not negotiate with Israel because they didn’t trust Israel, because they were afraid of retribution for ‘collaboration’ and because some of them were loyal to King Hussein. Also, Pan-Arabism, not statehood, was a strong political current at that time.

          6. Uhh.. because the PLO’s National Charter included the complete elimination of Israeli sovereignty in Palestine and the destruction of the State of Israel?

          7. I don’t know that that’s correct since you don’t quote whatever document you’re referring to.

            Nevertheless, Israeli law prohibited negotiations with the PLO for many years. Guess what? Israel negotiated with the PLO. Things change. The PLO changed. Israel changed.

          8. Uhh. Because the Jews had no sovereignty in Palestine. No State of Israel. They were given an opportunity to live in Palestine. No matter how you want to look at it every piece of historical evidence I have seen shows Jews talking about how they tried to get back to Palestine. Not FUCKING Israel, Palestine. And the UN gave them that opportunity. The Shaw report should have warned them what would happen but you know bureaucrats.

          9. Correctamundo, Watcher465. Jews have lived in Palestine alongside Arab Christians and Muslims for milennia, but they weren’t a sovereign political entity; this was zionism’s goal, to create that “Jewish state,” which really makes little sense except politically. Palestine was always a place Jews could live peacefully but most of the world’s Jews didn’t want to live there, not even after World War II. It took a bit of trickery to get enough of them to go there after WWII ended; Alan Hart has claimed in his book “Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews” that the US government had issued 600,000 emergency visas to be given to Europe’s Jews, but someone in Truman’s administration cancelled them in order to divert as many Jews as possible to Palestine. My apologies, Richard, for going off topic.

          10. @mary,
            I may not have made myself clear. I know Jews were already living in Palestine, and for the most part peacefully with the Palestinians. I was referring to the Jews who were trying to escape the war in Europe. Everyone I’ve seen interviewed and now living in “Israel” said that they were trying to get to Palestine. No one ever mentioned Israel. Sorry for that mix up.

          11. @Watcher

            “No matter how you want to look at it every piece of historical evidence I have seen …”

            ‘In a private conversation at Balfour’s House in the summer of 1921, both Balfour and the Prime Minister contradicted him [Churchill] and told Churchill that “by the Declaration they always meant an eventual Jewish State.”
            Fromkin cited to Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill: Companion Volume, Vol. 4, Part3: April 1921-November 1922, p. 1559.(Boston: Houghton Miffline, 1975)

            It was clear at the time that the term “national home” really meant a state. Back in 1917, three months after his declaration was issued, Lord Balfour confessed: “My personal hope is that the Jews will make good in Palestine and eventually found a Jewish state.” See,Ronald Sanders book, High Walls of Jerusalem, p.652. As far as the United States interpretation of “national home”, a U.S. intelligence recommendations drafted for President Wilson at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference reported that: “It will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish State as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.” See, J.C. Hurewitz (ed.),The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics: A Documentary Record, Vol.2, British-French Supremacy, 1914-1945 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979, p. 132-36.

          12. Well isn’t it great that you have discovered what was said in a private conversation. And whose word are we supposed to take for that? Do we know what Churchill’s response was? And who cares what Balfour’s personal hope was? It was his personal hope carrying no weight at all. And who cares what a “US intelligence” recommendation for Wilson said.? Were “US intelligence” and Zionist President Wilson running the League of Nations? Very eager to make their views known considering that it took the UN, not the League of Nations to allow the Jews a homeland in Palestine. 28 years later. And the Jews were even more eager so they formed terrorist groups to start blowing things up just to let people know they were coming. I’m not claiming local Jews were complicit in this. I don’t know.
            And using references doesn’t make your assertions any less ridiculous. You can see that can’t you?

          13. No. No. No. Barak admitted that they were afraid that they would have to negotiate given the PLO passivity over one year’s time, no missiles etc. THAT was the Israeli nightmare come true, a real negotiating “other”, having to split up or possibly give up the WB for peace! Israel didn’t want to give up the WB (as we can all see now!) You seem unaware of these interesting revelations, these explanatory facts.

          14. Oh Joel, Joel. Israel is not a she. Israel is an”it”. Shove your hasbara up your arse. Don’t try to soften the crimes of a “nation” by calling it “she”. “The rockets, the rockets”, don’t forget what you are supposed to say Joel. You are weak, how do you expect to run the hasbara centre? Your parents will be so disappointed.

        2. Sharon didn’t send anyone, most were left virtually to fend for themselves. Very few have settled in WB, most in Israel proper.

          1. Ah, now I see. I should have gone back and read exactly what Mary wrote that you were responding to. So it’s only the new settlers who have been directed to the West Bank to live in “legal” and illegal settlements. Well there’s 290,000 of them living in the West Bank and Gaza and this land is called the Disputed Territories, at least by the Jewish Virtual Library. I would assume that Israel gave them the numbers and also how to name the land. And yes I know, some of the Jewish population probably won’t be actual settlers, just business owners.

          2. http://www.haaretz.com/news/gaza-evacuees-plan-to-move-to-new-west-bank-settlement-1.170371
            “Such a move, if approved by the government, would violate Israel’s promises to the United States not to establish new settlements and not to encourage Gaza settlers to move to the West Bank. Under the U.S.-backed road map peace plan, Israel is also required to freeze settlement construction.”

            And from this, one can surmise that the former Gaza settlers would be resettled in the West Bank, simply because as of the article’s publication date (2009) they were still waiting for somewhere to go. Israel proper? I doubt it.

          3. http://www.haaretz.com/news/gaza-evacuees-plan-to-move-to-new-west-bank-settlement-1.170371
            “Such a move, if approved by the government, would violate Israel’s promises to the United States not to establish new settlements and not to encourage Gaza settlers to move to the West Bank. Under the U.S.-backed road map peace plan, Israel is also required to freeze settlement construction.”

            And from this, one can surmise that the former Gaza settlers would be resettled in the West Bank, simply because as of the article’s publication date (2009) they were still waiting for somewhere to go. Israel proper? I doubt it. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/11/30/difficult-but-not-impossible.html

    2. “And, as far as the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Steven: he was murdered by the Israeli, Saudi Arabia and Zionist neocons cabal, according to Pieczenik.”

      *cue cuckoo clock sound*

        1. I have no problem believing a radical Salafi group murdered him. In this “bad neighborhood” they are widely known and reviled.

          1. @Joel’
            And by the way Christopher Steven, and I’m assuming the name is correct, was US Ambassador to Australia before this and I believe he went to Libya with a genuine feeling he could help the country. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t shafted.

  10. Maybe that’s why it’s gonna happen on that date. Total surprise.

    Also I’m hearing that a 4th US carrier group is heading towards Iran.

    October surprise, you better believe it.

    On Sep 17th, a Hamas-run court gave life sentences to the murderers of Vittorio Arrigoni, two Hamas security guards who had joinned a Salafist group.
    “Unâdikum” [I call upon you] – a song that Vittorio Arrigoni often sang – is a famous poem by Palestinian poet – and longtime member of the Knesset for the Communist Party, Tawfiq Zayyad:
    “Stay Human”, a portrait of Vittorio Arrigoni made shortly before his death.
    Particularly the scene in the British cemetery, next to the grave of a Jewish soldier, is strong: min 16:30

  12. Yom Kippur is the perfect time.
    Everyone is basically at home the night of the holiday. Some people may have left the cow try on vacation,can’t help that.
    Virtualy Nobody works on YK , even the airport is closed.
    Easier to call up reserves. easier for reservists to get to their call up centers.
    Buses don’t run on YK night so IDF can drafting into the reserves busses and trucks. The buses and trucks will all be in their central parking garages.
    Easier to move about 800,000 people into underground parking garages in the central region and another 4-500,000 to other places in Israel.
    Civilians in the north can be evacuated that night.
    Drafted busses would go to reserve rally points and transport them to their new supply depots to pick up equipment.busses could transport civilians in a orderly fashion.

    All sorts of reasons why Yom Kippur is a good day if it is going to happen.

    There are no issues of Jewish Law to pick YK as opposed to another day.

  13. The news scoop is only the bit about implicating the USA.

    Israel implicated itself after a public enquiry a mere few months after the massacre in 1982 and many heads rolled. Unfortunately the Israeli voter has a very short memory.

    1. Israeli voters knew exactly what they were doing, the program they were endorsing and its mastermind. Without Lebanon, Sharon would not have been elected. The interesting question is whether he would have been elected without the massacre. Electing Sharon was a message of the sort “Watch out now! You KNOW what this guy is capable of!”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *